# Shin Megami Tensei vs. Umineko no Naku Koro ni



## Dark Evangel (Oct 30, 2010)

SMTverse vs. Uminekoverse

How does this go?


----------



## zenieth (Oct 30, 2010)

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA 

hope umineko likes rape


----------



## Raidou Kuzunoha (Oct 30, 2010)

An important question, is this SMT only or the rest of them like DDS, Persona, Devil Summoner, and such?

Cuz Umineko has a handful of people who're quite powerful.


----------



## zenieth (Oct 30, 2010)

SMT could do it on their own.


----------



## Dark Evangel (Oct 30, 2010)

basch71 said:


> An important question, is this SMT only or the rest of them like DDS, Persona, Devil Summoner, and such?


Yes, all of them. Although from what I've heard Persona is just a spin-off from the main series.


----------



## Raidou Kuzunoha (Oct 30, 2010)

Dark Evangel said:


> Yes, all of them. Although from what I've heard Persona is just a spin-off from the main series.



Oh damn,

YHVH
Lucifer
Brahman
Seraph
Hitoshura
Kagutsuchi

Are the ones that can win


----------



## zenieth (Oct 30, 2010)

Except for Brahman, those are all the main series.


----------



## Raidou Kuzunoha (Oct 30, 2010)

zenieth said:


> Except for Brahman, those are all the main series.



Also Seraph as well.


----------



## zenieth (Oct 30, 2010)

Also you mean, all that can solo.

Also Kagutsuchi can't solo, he'd wreck some shit, but Nyarlathotep and Philemon can't solo so he's a definite no.


----------



## Raidou Kuzunoha (Oct 30, 2010)

zenieth said:


> Also you mean, all that can solo.
> 
> Also Kagutsuchi can't solo, he'd wreck some shit, but Nyarlathotep and Philemon can't solo so he's a definite no.



Kagutsuchi's power was as such that his destrcution in the True Demon ending initiated the destruction of the known universe, as in, ALL OF THEM. And Lucifer pretty much confirmed that immediately after.

Remember, Tokyo wasn't the only place experiencing the Conception and was said that numerous places amongst the Amala Network as well.


----------



## zenieth (Oct 30, 2010)

Yeah, but there are countless Kagutsuchi. He destroyed one universe, which isn't much considering either of the duo could do that with a snap of their fingers, unless they were in opposition at the time.


----------



## Raidou Kuzunoha (Oct 30, 2010)

zenieth said:


> Yeah, but there are countless Kagutsuchi. He destroyed one universe, which isn't much considering either of the duo could do that with a snap of their fingers, unless they were in opposition at the time.



Except Lucifer confirmed just that and you and I know his shenanigans. 

And the Hitoshura is supposed to be the one who brings change to the world but since he became a True Demon, he completely wrecked that plan and everything went Nuclear.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruXy9nkRfAA&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## zenieth (Oct 30, 2010)

still only one universe.


----------



## Red (Oct 31, 2010)

Umineko has an Omnipotent. I'm just going to assume OP is disregarding that.

Anyways, feats for Shin Megami Tensai? From what I gather there are mutiversals, so what are the utmost limits?

@ OP Is that sum Fatal Frame?


----------



## neodragzero (Oct 31, 2010)

Umineko has an omnipotent?

I just found this:
said


----------



## zenieth (Oct 31, 2010)

What omnipotent does Umineko have?

All the characters that Basch mentioned are easily Multiversal save kagutsuchi who's just universal.

There's also Aleph, who he didn't mention, but that guy is currently incapacitated in the ultimate punishment.

Nyarlathotep and Philemon as I stated before have more supremacy than Kagutsuchi and can affect as of now a total of 2 universes casually. The problem with them is they're powers are tied and they're always at heads against one another which Kagutsuchi doesn't need to worry about.


----------



## Raidou Kuzunoha (Oct 31, 2010)

zenieth said:


> What omnipotent does Umineko have?
> 
> All the characters that Basch mentioned are easily Multiversal save kagutsuchi who's just universal.
> 
> ...



The Omnipotents of Umineko is called the Witch of Creation, literally detailed to have all aspects, Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresent. Problem is we don't have a bonafide Omnipotent except for that little girl Maria who IS the new WoC but she's not an omnipotent, yet. One major aspect is that WoC is above Voyager witches like Lambda and Berkanstel and the Endless witch like Beatrice, and they're not bound by the Universe, body included. Maria still has her body but her power should be about even with Beatrice but lacks skill.

In short, the loli will grow up to become God.


----------



## Endless Mike (Oct 31, 2010)

Red said:


> Umineko has an Omnipotent. I'm just going to assume OP is disregarding that.



We don't accept claims of omnipotence and judge it by feats. That's why TOAA wins in a fight against Kami Tenchi, even though they're both supposedly omnipotent.

Anyway, Aigis' cuteness solos


----------



## Watchman (Oct 31, 2010)

SMT wins quite handily.


----------



## MichaelUN89 (Oct 31, 2010)

Umineko does not have a confirmed omnipotent yet.  So  they have no chance of winning.
Maria supposedly has the potential to become the creator "an all mighty, omniscient"  God. 

However Bernkastel keeps her awesome attitude till  the very last moment and "She simply says: do it, this is boring anyway, I suggest you to kill me  slowly and in the most  sadistic way possible, so it can be a little bit funny for me."


----------



## zenieth (Oct 31, 2010)

From what I saw there are more than one creator from the wiki. That automatically throws out omnipotence and combined with the lack of feats, no chance in hell.


----------



## Raidou Kuzunoha (Oct 31, 2010)

zenieth said:


> From what I saw there are more than one creator from the wiki. That automatically throws out omnipotence and combined with the lack of feats, no chance in hell.



Not really, only one can really attain the level of Creator. Kinda like how there's only one Endless Witch. Something like a power transfer. 

If not, nigh-omnipotent is probably the closest thing since there's nothing after Creator level.


----------



## zenieth (Oct 31, 2010)

they were talking about there being more than one and that voyagers could become them, that's more than one meaning =/= omnipotent


----------



## MichaelUN89 (Oct 31, 2010)

zenieth said:


> they were talking about there being more than one and that voyagers could become them, that's more than one meaning =/= omnipotent



Lamdadelta points out that there is only one creator.

Witches who evolve into creator become part of one entity and they are free from all kinds of bounds and restrictions.

Since they even lose their individuality, voyagers fear to become creators.

Being a creator implies that everything is part of you.


----------



## zenieth (Oct 31, 2010)

eh I'll take it as a grain of salt.


----------



## MichaelUN89 (Oct 31, 2010)

zenieth said:


> eh I'll take it as a grain of salt.



-shrugs- anyway it is not like Umineko is taking this. 

They horribly lose against multiversals. 


I only said that the best chance they could ever hope for against such powerful verse is that one day they get a confirmed omnipotent which seems distant or even unlikely.


----------



## Raidou Kuzunoha (Oct 31, 2010)

MichaelUN89 said:


> -shrugs- anyway it is not like Umineko is taking this.
> 
> They horribly lose against multiversals.
> 
> ...



Well they do have time travel which can work against Hitoshura and kill him before he became a demon or kill Seraph when they were separated. But Gods and Demons are a different story.


----------



## Red (Oct 31, 2010)

neodragzero said:


> Umineko has an omnipotent?





> And the Creator.
> Omniscience, almighty, create everything.
> 
> ...... However, the  fact that they create everything and are freed from all restrictions  means they don't even have a restriction such as the ground under their  feet.
> Beings that completely lost all restrictions, ...... in  exchange for obtaining everything, they lose even the restriction of  their own 'meaning'.





zenieth said:


> *From what I saw there are more than one creator from the wiki*. That automatically throws out omnipotence and combined with the lack of feats, no chance in hell.


_
"...... Even the notion of life and death disappears, even the meaning of  the existing disappears, ...... they reach the limits of the zero."_

There isn't. Creators don't have plurals, or singulars or anything  humans can conceptualize. By all intents and purposes they're completely  free from restrictions, and that includes concepts like numbers.



Endless Mike said:


> We don't accept claims of omnipotence and judge it by feats.


That is retarded. Sit down and think for second why that is retarded.


----------



## zenieth (Oct 31, 2010)

They can't time travel to kill Hitoshura. He destroyed time along with the rest of the universe so there's no longer a timeline for them to destroy an origin of him for.


----------



## Endless Mike (Nov 2, 2010)

Red said:


> That is retarded. Sit down and think for second why that is retarded.



No, you think.

Random series says "Bob is omnipotent"

Bob has no feats.

Therefore everyone assumes Bob can beat anyone even if they have multiversal+ feats?

Omnipotence is a logically impossible concept anyway, and it can be argued that no character or entity in all of fiction is truly omnipotent, as a true omnipotent would really only have to act once, or not at all, and everything would go according his/her/its will.

I used to follow your interpretation, but it's completely untenable.


----------



## ~Greed~ (Nov 2, 2010)

MichaelUN89 said:


> However Bernkastel keeps her awesome attitude till  the very last moment and "She simply says: do it, this is boring anyway, I suggest you to kill me  slowly and in the most  sadistic way possible, so it can be a little bit funny for me."



Bern is awesome like that.

Also, aren't Bernkastel and Lambadelta multiversal?


----------



## Weather (Nov 2, 2010)

^ They should be.

Lambadelta was responsible of all the events of Higurashi while playing with Bern.
She scares the shit off Beatrice by just using a threat, Beatrice is already Universal.

Bern is her equal or stronger.
Also Featherine is MASSIVELY above them. Bern claims herself in EP7 that she is just Featherine's Piece.

And the When They Cry Multiverse (Higurashi and Umineko) is Massively big. (Bern and Lambda have said that there are Billions of Kakeras (Universes))

Just Pointing out.


----------



## zenieth (Nov 2, 2010)

This helps them how?


----------



## Endless Mike (Nov 2, 2010)

I'm no expert was but wasn't Yahweh also creating and destroying billions of universes and he got beaten by Aleph?


----------



## Weather (Nov 2, 2010)

zenieth said:


> This helps them how?



*Just pointing out* as I don't know shit of SMT.


----------



## Lucifeller (Nov 3, 2010)

Endless Mike said:


> I'm no expert was but wasn't Yahweh also creating and destroying billions of universes and he got beaten by Aleph?



He got better, and Aleph had the backup of several pantheons - not to mention Satan in the Law ending.

Yes, SATAN thought his boss crossed the line hard enough to warrant turning on him.

If YHVH's dickishness was a power, he'd crush this in a landslide.


----------



## zenieth (Nov 3, 2010)

Nyarlathotep would like a word


----------



## Lucifeller (Nov 3, 2010)

Leave Persona out of this 

It's one-sided enough as it is

If you add in Kotodama it gets silly, since the power to make rumors come true at will is something so ungodly broken it's not funny.


----------



## Endless Mike (Nov 3, 2010)

Lucifeller said:


> Leave Persona out of this
> 
> It's one-sided enough as it is
> 
> If you add in Kotodama it gets silly, since the power to make rumors come true at will is something so ungodly broken it's not funny.



John Constantine once defeated some beings that could do that


----------



## Raidou Kuzunoha (Nov 3, 2010)

Lucifeller said:


> Leave Persona out of this
> 
> It's one-sided enough as it is
> 
> If you add in Kotodama it gets silly, since the power to make rumors come true at will is something so ungodly broken it's not funny.



Like the Nazis from the Third Reich are just hiding out and Hitler's not dead which ended up coming true.


----------



## Lucifeller (Nov 4, 2010)

basch71 said:


> Like the Nazis from the Third Reich are just hiding out and Hitler's not dead which ended up coming true.



Among other things. :ho


----------



## Red (Nov 4, 2010)

Endless Mike said:


> No, you think.
> 
> Random series says "Bob is omnipotent"
> 
> ...


 But Bob has feats. It specifically says "creators create everything". The Umineko universe is a . A quantum multivers is by nature an Omniverse.

The only way you could attempt to disprove this information is by attacking the credibility of the person who stated that fact and you can't because she's one step below a creator 


> Omnipotence is a logically impossible concept anyway,


And so? Don't forget where you are.



> and it can be argued that no character or entity in all of fiction is truly omnipotent, *as a true omnipotent would really only have to act once, or not at all, and everything would go according his/her/its will.*



I don't see how that's in conflict with the description given here. Secondly what make you think an omnipotent even has a will? A true omnipotent wouldn't need a will, and that's exactly how a creator is described as. No will, no defining concept with the exception of its omnipotence, no sense of self or any concept that would detract from its omnipotence. That's the reason why Lambdadelta and Bern don't want to be creators, if they do they gain omnipotence and lose everything else.

There is no objection to calling a Creator omnipotent with the exception of it being a logical impossibility, but even at that don't forget where you are.



			
				~Greed~ said:
			
		

> Bern is awesome like that.
> 
> Also, aren't Bernkestal and Lambadelta multiversal?


Yes they are. Beatrice and Maria could create a single universe together with Beatrice's power to manipulate the infinite and Maria's  to produce a single universe. Bernkestal and Lambdadelta are so laughably above Beatrice that its not even a joke. Then there is Featherine who's the closest out of the three voyagers in becoming a creator. She's so close she can hardly keep her sense of self.


----------



## Endless Mike (Nov 4, 2010)

Red said:


> But Bob has feats. It specifically says "creators create everything". The Umineko universe is a . A quantum multivers is by nature an Omniverse.



Um, no, no it's not. You have no idea what omniverse means. The MWI specifies a finite amount of universes, bounded by the amount of different results of wave function collapse since the Big Bang. Sure, it's a fucking lot, but it's not infinite. The Marvel omniverse has infinite megaverses, each composed of infinite multiverses, each composed of infinite universes, with many other realms, worlds, and dimensions.



> The only way you could attempt to disprove this information is by attacking the credibility of the person who stated that fact and you can't because she's one step below a creator



Except this information proves nothing. You can't prove omnipotence, it's an inherently illogical concept. Pencil was actually right about this.



> And so? Don't forget where you are.



Please learn the difference between physically impossible and logically impossible 



> I don't see how that's in conflict with the description given here. Secondly what make you think an omnipotent even has a will? A true omnipotent wouldn't need a will, and that's exactly how a creator is described as. No will, no defining concept with the exception of its omnipotence, no sense of self or any concept that would detract from its omnipotence. That's the reason why Lambdadelta and Bern don't want to be creators, if they do they gain omnipotence and lose everything else.



Yet apparently it has other people join it for no reason. Fact is, we go by feats. If you have altering billions of universes, that's great. So does SMT. You can't claim that one character with equal or lesser feats than another would win because someone says that character is omnipotent.


----------



## Red (Nov 4, 2010)

Endless Mike said:


> Um, no, no it's not. You have no idea what omniverse means. *The MWI specifies a finite amount of universes,*  bounded by the amount of different results of wave function collapse  since the Big Bang. Sure, it's a fucking lot, but it's not infinite. The  Marvel omniverse has infinite megaverses, each composed of infinite  multiverses, each composed of infinite universes, with many other  realms, worlds, and dimensions.


_
" MWI's main conclusion is that the universe (or multiverse in this  context) is composed of a quantum superposition of very many, possibly  even *non-denumerably infinitely*[9][6]_ many,* increasingly divergent*, non-communicating parallel universes or quantum worlds._"_

Note the word "". That's an uncountable set.

Not the term increasingly divergent. That means with each universe  branches into a shitton of other universes and on and on and on. To  picture this:

Every possible outcome since the big bang, right? How many particles are  in the known universe? Google gives me 2.5 x 10^89. Now take all the  the possible movements of one particle. Each possible position not taken  creates its own universe where the movement occurred. Do that for all  the particles in the universe and congratulations you have a really big  number. Now each of the other universes have an unspecified number of  particles each with their own possible positions which in turn makes  universes from their own probability and on and on and on till holy  fuck, wikipedia is right! That shit is uncountable! 

Oh and don't even try to bring Marvels cosmic system into this. You  might as well make up your own words and start using them to prove your  point. I would bet my favorite finger that whatever you make up make  much more sense than the mass of bullshit that's the Marvel cosmic  system.


> Except this information proves nothing. You can't prove omnipotence,  it's an inherently illogical concept. Pencil was actually right about  this.


Its not proving anything. Its stating a fact. My whole  point with pencil was that you can't prove omnipotence but you can check  the authors intent and how the word is being used in the work. If its  clear as crystal that the author means objectively all powerful then you  take it at face value.



> Please learn the difference between physically impossible and logically impossible


Red  herring. Is there a difference between those two concepts? Is the sky  blue? Would making your aunt a man make her your uncle? You betcha. But  that is irrelevant. All that's relevant is your willing to suspend your  disbelief and accept whats given. Again remember where you are, being  here means that you agree to suspend your disbelief. So start  suspending.



> Yet apparently it has other people join it for no reason.


And this is important why?



> Fact is, we go by feats. If you have altering billions of  universes, that's great. So does SMT. You can't claim that one character  with equal or lesser feats than another would win because someone says  that character is omnipotent.


But Bob has feats. Bob created the  entire Umineko verse. The entire Umineko verse is a quantum universe.  Each Kakera is a crystallization of a single possibility. The only real  argument is whether or not the Umineko -verse is an omniverse and it is.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Nov 4, 2010)

We don't give a free pass to omnipotents here, we either don't use them or for the sake of a debate we go by feats. 



> Omniverse: All possible attributes and modes are in play, multiverses are categorized by the attributes/modes active in its child universes. Some or all possible modes of existence are actualized. If we take the point of origin as our being as a point in measurement, then we can generate the following hierarchy: 1. our location in space-time, 2. this universe (cosmos), 3. the multiverse, 4. the metaverse, 5. the xenoverse, 6. the omniverse



It's from wikipedia(I know, it's no better than your wiki link) as you can see the Omniverse is the highest scale in cosmology including everything. You are abusing the terms. I would like to see the quote/statement for this omniverse you claim since it appears you're most likely misusing terms or misunderstanding them into something they're not. Are you sure it's not just a multiverse through some statement like "many worlds/dimensions/universes" which do not necessarily imply an omniverse?

Being omniscient does'nt make you omnipotent either since we have cased where cosmics with omniscience are below other cosmics. The three Chousin are omniscient but they can't create something stronger than them like Kami Tenchi who exists in a realm beyond their omniscience and is their creator. Cosmics can be aware of things within their own realm as long as no higher cosmic is there clouding their awareness of his/her presence. 

Why is it that you're the only one arguing for an omnipotent in this thread? The so called omnipotent is not currently omnipotent no?


----------



## ~Shin~ (Nov 4, 2010)

Weather said:


> Lambadelta was responsible of all the events of Higurashi while playing with Bern.



When was this established? I was under the impression that Featherine abandoned Rika in the infinite time loop. 

Unless you mean Lambdadelta was responsible for Takano and indirectly caused all the events in Higurashi.


----------



## Red (Nov 5, 2010)

*Honestly, I'm sorry for the tl;dr.*



Tranquil Fury said:


> We don't give a free pass to omnipotents here, we either don't use them or for the sake of a debate we go by feats.


_"But Bob has feats. It specifically says "creators create everything". The Umineko universe is a . A quantum multivers is by nature an Omniverse."_

He's the creator God, creating the Umineko universe is his feat. The only real questions you can ask is _"Why should we believe Lambdadelta?"_ and _"What makes you think a probability based universe is equivalent to an omniverse?"_

Plus Endless Mike is trying to pull a Catch 22 on me. Remember what he said? 

_" it can be argued that no character or entity in all of fiction is truly  omnipotent, *as a true omnipotent would really only have to act once, or  not at all, and everything would go according his/her/its will.*"_

That's a contradiction. If I present a character that is omnipotent to him, he'll ask for feats. If I say that the character created the universe, he'll retort that's hearsay and the narrator is not reliable. If I say okay look at this feat the omnipotent character is performing a feat, he'll retort that the act of doing something disproves the omnipotence. If I say well okay its been said that everything in the story is moving according to his will, he'll hit me with a two hit combo to the jaw and gut with "The narrator is unreliable and that's not proof enough without on panel feats, which also disqualifies him from being omnipotent because he's actually performing something".

. Endless Mike is correct, omnipotence is a logical impossibility which means trying to show it logically is impossible, you'll always commit a fallacy. Using on panel feats to prove omnipotence results in what the OBD calls a no-limits fallacy (more specifically), that is to say that if a character creates the omniverse, it doesn't mean he's all powerful, it just means he can create the omniverse. If you extrapolate that he's omnipotent from that alone then you're committing a fallacy. That was my stance with Pencil, you can't prove omnipotence by showing it because its illogical. You accept that narrative/narration for sake of fiction. You can question the reliability of the speaker, you can see if it is credible by seeing whether or not the God is a creator god; even if creating an omniverse doesn't prove omnipotence  it does lend credibility to the claim, and if there's no contradiction to the claim then its fair game. But asking me to show feats for an illogical concept is like asking me to set fire to gravity. Its impossible to even imagine.





> It's from wikipedia(I know, it's no better than your wiki link) as you can see the Omniverse is the highest scale in cosmology including everything. You are abusing the terms. I would like to see the quote/statement for this omniverse you claim since it appears you're most likely misusing terms or misunderstanding them into something they're not. Are you sure it's not just a multiverse through some statement like "many worlds/dimensions/universes" which do not necessarily imply an omniverse?


I'm not misunderstanding the terms being used here or the meaning. The explicit explanations are given in EP3, Virgilia specifically likens the the setting to Shrodingers cat box with infinite possibilities until opened. 

The actual imagery of infinite universes was shown in EP6 when Bernkestal and Lambdadelta took Battler to the Sea of Kakera (Kakera = alternate possibilities).

When Erika was messing up, Bernkestal threatened to find the worst possible universe and lock her in there forever.

In EP7 Bernkestal used an alternate possibility where an important character doesn't die as a child as a Game Board.

Bernkestal explicitly states that all the other Ange(s) in other possible worlds might still get their brothers back but the specific Ange in EP4 won't.

Even the witches powers are probability based. Lambdadelta's power is one of certainty. If something has an inevitable outcome she makes it happen. An event has a Start, Middle, End. If the End is 100% guaranteed she just takes out the middle and makes the inevitable end happen right this moment. For Bern, if there's a small chance of something happening, she'll just repeat the process until it happens. Even if it means waiting for all eternity. Given an infinite amount of time everything that can possibly happen will certainly happen.

I could go on but that'd waste your time. It is made pretty clear that the When They Cry multiverse is based on probability, with each probable circumstance representing a universe. So my argument that their setting is an Omniverse is sound. A quantum multiverse IS an omniverse. Every single possibilities spawns a universe with its different possibilities which spawns another universe and on and on. So at the end of the day every possible outcome and every possible outcome based on the previous outcomes and son make an alternate universe. A multiverse were every single possible outcome is realized and that fits the definition you just gave yourself:

_"Omniverse: All possible attributes and modes are in play, multiverses  are categorized by the attributes/modes active in its child universes."_



> Being omniscient does'nt make you omnipotent either since we have cased where cosmics with omniscience are below other cosmics. The three Chousin are omniscient but they can't create something stronger than them like Kami Tenchi who exists in a realm beyond their omniscience and is their creator. Cosmics can be aware of things within their own realm as long as no higher cosmic is there clouding their awareness of his/her presence.


I didn't say omniscience implies omnipotence.



> Why is it that you're the only one arguing for an omnipotent in this thread? The so called omnipotent is not currently omnipotent no?


You mean Maria? I'm not talking about her. There is a preexisting Creator. And I'm debating this because I was called out to prove my initial claim and I'm doing just that.


----------



## Endless Mike (Nov 8, 2010)

Red said:


> *snip*That shit is uncountable!



Only if you assume quantum branching in each divergent universe, which I would really like to see a quote to support, especially when someone else posted a quote saying it was billions. 



> Oh and don't even try to bring Marvels cosmic system into this. You  might as well make up your own words and start using them to prove your  point. I would bet my favorite finger that whatever you make up make  much more sense than the mass of bullshit that's the Marvel cosmic  system.



You're the one who used the term "omniverse". I naturally assumed you meant the Marvel definition of omniverse, since the only other definition means every fictional work ever as well as real life, and you obviously didn't mean that. So if you didn't mean either, then you're the one making up your own definitions.



> Its not proving anything. Its stating a fact. My whole  point with pencil was that you can't prove omnipotence but you can check  the authors intent and how the word is being used in the work. If its  clear as crystal that the author means objectively all powerful then you  take it at face value.



Stopped reading at the words "author's intent". We all know that shit doesn't fly in the OBD. The authors never intended their creations to be pit in hypothetical battles vs. other fictional creations, so by doing this we're already violating the "author's intent". Claims of omnipotence don't stack up if the other guy has better feats. That's why Kami Tenchi loses to the LT.



> Red herring. Is there a difference between those two concepts? Is the sky  blue? Would making your aunt a man make her your uncle? You betcha. But  that is irrelevant. All that's relevant is your willing to suspend your  disbelief and accept whats given. Again remember where you are, being  here means that you agree to suspend your disbelief. So start  suspending.



We don't accept logically impossible claims because they make things completely impossible to analyze. If something defies logic, you can't apply logic to it, and if you can't apply logic to it, it can't be debated. This is why omnipotence is one of the most pointless and retarded things to argue about.



> And this is important why?



Why would an omnipotent need that to happen?



> But Bob has feats. Bob created the  entire Umineko verse. The entire Umineko verse is a quantum universe.  Each Kakera is a crystallization of a single possibility. The only real  argument is whether or not the Umineko -verse is an omniverse and it is.



Again, you are obviously using some fucking weird definition of omniverse since it doesn't match any version I know.



Red said:


> _"But Bob has feats. It specifically says "creators create everything". The Umineko universe is a . A quantum multivers is by nature an Omniverse."_



Only going by your weird-ass definition of omniverse.



> He's the creator God, creating the Umineko universe is his feat. The only real questions you can ask is _"Why should we believe Lambdadelta?"_ and _"What makes you think a probability based universe is equivalent to an omniverse?"_



None of this shit has anything to do with omnipotence.



> Plus Endless Mike is trying to pull a Catch 22 on me. Remember what he said?
> 
> _" it can be argued that no character or entity in all of fiction is truly  omnipotent, *as a true omnipotent would really only have to act once, or  not at all, and everything would go according his/her/its will.*"_
> 
> ...



I love how you supposedly can read my mind and know everything I will ever say. It's like a preemptive strawman. Congratulations Red, you just invented a brand - new fallacy!

My entire point is YOU CAN'T PROVE OMNIPOTENCE, SO YOU HAVE TO GO BY FEATS. If you're going to drop the whole omnipotence claim and simply compare feats, then I'm fine with that. I don't care about this match at all, I only care about your abuse of logic.



> Endless Mike is correct, omnipotence is a logical impossibility which means trying to show it logically is impossible, you'll always commit a fallacy. Using on panel feats to prove omnipotence results in what the OBD calls a no-limits fallacy (more specifically), that is to say that if a character creates the omniverse, it doesn't mean he's all powerful, it just means he can create the omniverse. If you extrapolate that he's omnipotent from that alone then you're committing a fallacy. That was my stance with Pencil, you can't prove omnipotence by showing it because its illogical. You accept that narrative/narration for sake of fiction. You can question the reliability of the speaker, you can see if it is credible by seeing whether or not the God is a creator god; even if creating an omniverse doesn't prove omnipotence  it does lend credibility to the claim, and if there's no contradiction to the claim then its fair game. But asking me to show feats for an illogical concept is like asking me to set fire to gravity. Its impossible to even imagine.



So then drop the claim, if you admit it's illogical.



> I'm not misunderstanding the terms being used here or the meaning. The explicit explanations are given in EP3, Virgilia specifically likens the the setting to Shrodingers cat box with infinite possibilities until opened.



Except the possibilities are not infinite, they are bounded by the amount of matter and energy affected. 



> The actual imagery of infinite universes was shown in EP6 when Bernkestal and Lambdadelta took Battler to the Sea of Kakera (Kakera = alternate possibilities).



How exactly do you show an image of something infinite?



> When Erika was messing up, Bernkestal threatened to find the worst possible universe and lock her in there forever.



If there was one that was worst, that means they are finite, because if they were infinite, there would always be one worse than the worst you could find.



> In EP7 Bernkestal used an alternate possibility where an important character doesn't die as a child as a Game Board.



Not seeing how this proves anything being infinite...



> Bernkestal explicitly states that all the other Ange(s) in other possible worlds might still get their brothers back but the specific Ange in EP4 won't.



Same



> Even the witches powers are probability based. Lambdadelta's power is one of certainty. If something has an inevitable outcome she makes it happen. An event has a Start, Middle, End. If the End is 100% guaranteed she just takes out the middle and makes the inevitable end happen right this moment.



Sounds like the Basanos, except they can make anything with any possibility of happening happen. Not really seeing your point.



> For Bern, if there's a small chance of something happening, she'll just repeat the process until it happens. Even if it means waiting for all eternity. Given an infinite amount of time everything that can possibly happen will certainly happen.



Yet anything with a non-0 probability will not take infinite time to manifest. Not to mention that repeating time infinitely doesn't prove infinite universes, the Chousein did that too.



> I could go on but that'd waste your time. It is made pretty clear that the When They Cry multiverse is based on probability, with each probable circumstance representing a universe. So my argument that their setting is an Omniverse is sound. A quantum multiverse IS an omniverse. Every single possibilities spawns a universe with its different possibilities which spawns another universe and on and on. So at the end of the day every possible outcome and every possible outcome based on the previous outcomes and son make an alternate universe. A multiverse were every single possible outcome is realized and that fits the definition you just gave yourself:
> 
> _"Omniverse: All possible attributes and modes are in play, multiverses  are categorized by the attributes/modes active in its child universes."_



Um, no. Not at all. Every possible universe exists in a single multiverse in Marvel, yet there are even impossible universes in other multiverses, as well as megaverses, that make up the omniverse. Going by the Marvel definition, that would only be a multiverse. And yes, it does matter if you want to compare them to other cosmic characters, especially using the term omniverse which is defined in two ways:

1. The Marvel way
2. Everything in all of fiction or real life



> I didn't say omniscience implies omnipotence.



But the reverse is true.



> You mean Maria? I'm not talking about her. There is a preexisting Creator. And I'm debating this because I was called out to prove my initial claim and I'm doing just that.



You just said earlier in this very post that it's impossible to prove omnipotence. But now you're trying to prove it anyway?


----------



## Red (Nov 10, 2010)

Endless Mike said:


> Only if you assume quantum branching in each divergent universe. which I would really like to see a quote to support,


We've come full circle haven't we? Ive been saying this since post one. Its exactly that:



> _"At this moment, on Rokkenjima, witches and magic certainly might exist as truth. However, until the moment that the cat's box is opened, that world is an uncertain wave function. The entire situation can be explained by both sides at the same time. However, there is one truth.[FONT=&quot;] That truth is contracted by observation, and countless truths are weeded out to become one truth[/FONT]."_





> _"That's right. Truth is unfixed. It can be like a particle, or like a wave, and it can hold conflicting forms at the same time. But the truth is very delicate. It can change its appearance just by being observed."_


Wave function? Wave Function collapse? Observer? Dual properties? Schrodinger's cat box? Boy it sure sounds like their describing something awfully similar to many worlds theory. But they didn't actually say that these were worl-




> _?__Hachijo Tohya was one who had reached Beatrice's truth, 'Endless Witch' like Beatrice, who could add to the endlessly stretching parallel worlds of the cat box."_


Hmm, looks like they do mean parallel worlds. But its not like they're worlds based of alternate possibilit-




> _"If you step down, then the game will end with your loss by default, get it? If you want to make certain that your lonely sister will always meet with miserable circumstances in an endless number of worlds, that option is indeed open to you."_





> _"Whatever happens to your little sister in a world where you don't come home has nothing to do with you. As long as you play here, the Anges of countless worlds will live in isolation"_


Golly gee. It sure sounds like their specifically saying that the world is one that diverges, based on the same principles of many worlds. But feats are feats dammit! Unless we're shown an actual scene with the quantum multiverse stretching out before them then this is all hearsa-



> _?In this space, every direction was covered in an endless darkness, and it felt like an endless expanse filled with countless glittering objects. Some people might have likened it to the depths of an ocean where countless glittering fragments drifted. Then, with tails of light drifting behind them, several brightly glowing Fragments swirled around Bernkastel. "They aren't memories. They're Fragments of worlds."_


Well dress me up in the likeness George W Bush, fuck me sideways and call it bestiality! It sounds like a quantum divergence to me!



> especially when someone else posted a quote saying it was billions.


What he means is this:



> _"Unless you kill Beatrice, only worlds of isolation can exist for you. As one who has traveled to billions of kakera, I can guarantee it."_





> _"In the world of billions of kakera, I'll send you into the most miserable kakera and seal you there."_


Obviously she's just talking about the worlds she has knowledge of/been to/can use and that no way implies that that is the limit. Its explicitly stated that its endless.



> _"Well, this is a world of endless kakera. The chances of us having some connection again somewhere are probably less than one in a quadrillion."_





> _?For the versions of themselves to whom the game board was the only world, this was a tragic parricide but to these ones who stood around the game board in this witch's smoking room it was nothing more than a movement of the pieces, representing George's will to overcome his parents. However, the fact remained that the demons had ordered them to take these lives, even if it was just within one of the endless Fragment worlds."_


That should be enough.




> You're the one who used the term "omniverse". I naturally assumed you meant the Marvel definition of omniverse, since the only other definition means every fictional work ever as well as real life, and you obviously didn't mean that. So if you didn't mean either, then you're the one making up your own definitions.


 mid way through the discussion, because hey, suddenly questioning the use a portmanteau word (, , I wonder what they mean!) is a valid stall tactic and awesome way to rebound from a statement. And it's followed by a , because its either your way, Marvel's way or the highway! Those are both fallacies so stop using them. 

"Omniverse" is a portmanteau of Omni and Verse. That's pretty self explanatory. Everybody in the OBD would tell you that an omniverse is everything in every world ever. That doesn't include the real world. You can't also claim that I'm weasel wording anything because at the very start of this discussion I defined it for you and repeated that definition. You can't claim you've never seen the term used like that. You're not new here.



> Stopped reading at the words "author's intent". We all know that shit doesn't fly in the OBD. The authors never intended their creations to be pit in hypothetical battles vs. other fictional creations, so by doing this we're already violating the "author's intent". Claims of omnipotence don't stack up if the other guy has better feats. That's why Kami Tenchi loses to the LT.


.



> We don't accept logically impossible claims because they make things completely impossible to analyze. If something defies logic, you can't apply logic to it, and if you can't apply logic to it, it can't be debated. This is why omnipotence is one of the most pointless and retarded things to argue about.


Logically impossible things happen in fiction all the time and because they can't be debated we accept them at face value. You know the meme The Motherfucking Flash? Its there because half his feats are nonsensical and illogical. So what do we do, we run with what's been told at face value and we don't analyze it at all. You know Demonbane? His powers make now logical sense so we don't analyze them, we take it at face value. Lucifer flying off outside of creation like its an actual "setting"? Makes not a lick of sense and we still take it as it is, Nono drop kicking a black hole? Same thing. Violating any law of physics? Same thing. In this very thread we have a being who erased his own origin and entire timeline making him an uncaused cause. We took it at face value. Stop your selective application of rule, you don't get to selectively choose which illogical feat to pick up or let go at your convenience. Hence if an illogical feat 


> Why would an omnipotent need that to happen?


"Need"? Where the did you get that its necessary in any way at all? Its exactly like nirvana and that in no way disproves omnipotence.


----------



## Red (Nov 10, 2010)

> Again, you are obviously using some fucking weird definition of  omniverse since it doesn't match any version I know.


See above.



> Only going by your weird-ass definition of omniverse.


See above.



> None of this shit has anything to do with omnipotence.





> ME:_"You  can question the reliability of the speaker, you can see if it is   credible by seeing whether or not the God is a creator god;* even if  creating an omniverse doesn't prove omnipotence  it does lend  credibility to the claim*, and if there's no contradiction to the claim  then its fair game."_


I  never said it proves omnipotence. I'm agreeing with the part of your  argument that makes sen. Feats lend credibility to the claim and in that  aspect they're important. But its illogical to claim that they're the  only measure.



> I love how you supposedly can read my mind and know everything I  will ever say. It's like a preemptive strawman. Congratulations Red, you  just invented a brand - new fallacy!


*Standard cop out technique #7026:*  If someone points out an internal contradiction in your argument just  claim strawman then move on. Hopefully by that time everyone is too  tired of your nonsense to go back and quote you word for word and you  can get away with it!



> So then drop the claim, if you admit it's illogical.


See  above, you're trying to hand wave feats because they're illogical but  only when its convenient for you . Its fiction, take the narrative or just stop reading fiction and start reading none fiction.



> Except the possibilities are not infinite, they are bounded by the  amount of matter and energy affected.


Me: Post wiki that asserts  the possibilities are infinite.
Me: Highlight specific use of the term "Denumerably Infinite"
Me: Use accepted principle of MWI with that stresses the infinite nature of the multiverse.
Me: Post quotes from game that say the same thing.
You: Nope.

You disregard my argument, references, examples and quotes with an unsupported rebuttal. Not cutting it.



> How exactly do you show an image of something infinite?


You show  an approximation and have the reliable narrator tell you its infinite.  An example: At least one math teacher has drawn the infinity symbol and  said "This is infinite" or dotted down three dots after a numerical  progression and said "This means its infinite" or just gave you the pi  symbol and said "The numbers regress infinitely". You didn't stand up  and say "Bullshit, write that shit out in its entirety or I don't  fucking believe you!". Same here, you're disregarding the narrator  because its unreliable and placing emphasis on shown feats when that  alone can't show something endless.



> If there was one that was worst, that means they are finite,  because if they were infinite, there would always be one worse than the  worst you could find.


Its not that hard to rationalize. She means  I'll shove you into the worst one I can find not the worst there is. 



> Not seeing how this proves anything being infinite...


I'll  give you that its implicit but here: It proves that that the umineko  universe is one branching off into alternate possibilities with each  possibility representing a universe. And if its quantum branching then  its infinite. 



> Same


See above.



> Sounds like the Basanos, except they can make anything with any  possibility of happening happen. Not really seeing your point.


See above. After seeing above: to be more specific it shows that  their universe is one based on probability, with the witches having  probability based powers to manipulate their probability based setting.



> Yet anything with a non-0 probability will not take infinite time  to manifest.


The sky is blue, so what? The term "infinite time"  is conveniently placed there because we don't know how long it will take  and instead of making up numbers we just say that we enough time it  will eventually come to pass.



> Not to mention that repeating time infinitely doesn't prove  infinite universes, the Chousein did that too.


It does if you  exhaust all possible outcomes with each possibility branching off to  form a universe with even more possibilities.



> Um, no. Not at all. Every possible universe exists in a single  multiverse in Marvel, yet there are even impossible universes in other  multiverses, as well as megaverses, that make up the omniverse. Going by  the Marvel definition, that would only be a multiverse. And yes, it  does matter if you want to compare them to other cosmic characters,  especially using the term omniverse which is defined in two ways:
> 
> 1. The Marvel way
> 2. Everything in all of fiction or real life


I thought we agreed  that marvel is full of shit and you should stop using false dichotomy?



> But the reverse is true.


k



> You just said earlier in this very post that it's impossible to  prove omnipotence. But now you're trying to prove it anyway?





> prov·en,  prov·ing.   –verb (used with object)1.to establish the truth or  genuineness of, as by evidence or argument: to prove one's claim.
> 3.to give demonstration of by action.
> 4.to  subject to a test, experiment, comparison, analysis, or the like,  to  determine quality, amount, acceptability, characteristics,  etc.


It is impossible to prove omnipotence. The definition of  "Prove" we're using is 3 and 4. That is proof by feats. The "prove" I'm  using is number 1. Its different from 3 and 4 because those are limited  to using empirical evidence or shown events. Number 1 includes that as  well as accepting narrative and exposition using the willingness to  suspend disbelief.

You know the variations of the word and their meaning depending on context already, don't play this game with me.


----------



## Endless Mike (Nov 13, 2010)

Red said:


> We've come full circle haven't we? Ive been saying this since post one. Its exactly that:
> 
> 
> *snip bad attempt at theatrics*



Can you read? I asked for evidence of quantum branching in each divergent universe, not the prime one. All you did was serve me up one giant Red Herring.

BTW, "it felt" is hardly conclusive evidence of it being infinite 



> Obviously she's just talking about the worlds she has knowledge of/been to/can use and that no way implies that that is the limit. Its explicitly stated that its endless.
> 
> That should be enough.



If it was, then the possibility would be infinitesimal, not one in a quadrillion. How would they know it was infinite, and not just bigger than they could count or see the end of?

Also I would like a source of all of these quotes.



> mid way through the discussion, because hey, suddenly questioning the use a portmanteau word (, , I wonder what they mean!) is a valid stall tactic and awesome way to rebound from a statement. And it's followed by a , because its either your way, Marvel's way or the highway! Those are both fallacies so stop using them.
> 
> "Omniverse" is a portmanteau of Omni and Verse. That's pretty self explanatory. Everybody in the OBD would tell you that an omniverse is everything in every world ever. That doesn't include the real world. You can't also claim that I'm weasel wording anything because at the very start of this discussion I defined it for you and repeated that definition. You can't claim you've never seen the term used like that. You're not new here.



Don't make up your own definitions for terms that already have established definitions. Just say multiverse, as by using the word omniverse you are implying it to be something greater than it is.

Link removed



> The term "omniverse" was coined by Marvel Comics editor Mark Gruenwald (at the time working for a fanzine) and at the time of it's creation the term was taken to mean everything in all of fiction as well as real life. In popular usage the term has (d)evolved, however, so that within an in-universe context it is often used to mean a set of megaverses, which in term host a set a multiverses. Marvel Comics has adopted Gruenwald's scale, and explicitly acknowledges an omniverse, which has been referenced and supported multiple times. However Marvel Comics is also known for its changing of the term. At one point it was considered that the Marvel Omniverse was equal to all realities, all universes, planes, dimensions. It was considered to be everything, literally everything without exception (see the discussion on it at KMC ). In the OBD however, this is usually disregarded, and is kept down to its in-universe parameters.





> .



It's not a fallacy if it's a policy here, and that policy exists for good reason. 



> Logically impossible things happen in fiction all the time and because they can't be debated we accept them at face value. You know the meme The Motherfucking Flash? Its there because half his feats are nonsensical and illogical.



Proof that you don't comprehend the difference between a physical impossibility and a logical impossibility.

Physical impossibilities: FTL travel, time travel, reality warping, etc.

Logical impossibilities: Square circles, 2 + 2 = 5, omnipotence, etc.

The first simply cannot happen due to the way the universe works as we know it.

The second cannot happen because they are self-contradictory, and often they cannot even be imagined.



> So what do we do, we run with what's been told at face value and we don't analyze it at all.



Um, no. We judge the Flash's powers based on his feats, as we have always done.



> You know Demonbane? His powers make now logical sense so we don't analyze them, we take it at face value. Lucifer flying off outside of creation like its an actual "setting"? Makes not a lick of sense and we still take it as it is, Nono drop kicking a black hole? Same thing. Violating any law of physics? Same thing. In this very thread we have a being who erased his own origin and entire timeline making him an uncaused cause. We took it at face value. Stop your selective application of rule, you don't get to selectively choose which illogical feat to pick up or let go at your convenience. Hence if an illogical feat



Again, learn the difference between physical and logical impossibilities, because you're conflating the two and looking like a fool in the process. Then again, that's not unusual for you.



> "Need"? Where the did you get that its necessary in any way at all? Its exactly like nirvana and that in no way disproves omnipotence.



Then why does it happen?



Red said:


> I  never said it proves omnipotence. I'm agreeing with the part of your  argument that makes sen. Feats lend credibility to the claim and in that  aspect they're important. But its illogical to claim that they're the  only measure.



Of course. But no feats, precedence, or powerscaling can ever be sufficient to prove omnipotence. Any given feat you or anyone else can think of will be infinitely less than what a true omnipotent could do.



> *Standard cop out technique #7026:*  If someone points out an internal contradiction in your argument just  claim strawman then move on. Hopefully by that time everyone is too  tired of your nonsense to go back and quote you word for word and you  can get away with it!



Excuse me? You didn't even attempt to address my arguments, you made up your own version of what I would say in the future and attacked it! Anyone can see that you're the one being dishonest here. 



> See  above, you're trying to hand wave feats because they're illogical but  only when its convenient for you. Its fiction, take the narrative or just stop reading fiction and start reading none fiction.



Learn the difference between physical and logical impossibilities. Logical impossibilities are unusable as feats.



> Me: Post wiki that asserts  the possibilities are infinite.
> Me: Highlight specific use of the term "Denumerably Infinite"
> Me: Use accepted principle of MWI with that stresses the infinite nature of the multiverse.
> Me: Post quotes from game that say the same thing.
> ...



Like I said before, you are implicitly assuming that quantum branching occurs in each divergent universe, I requested proof of this claim, but you either dodged it with red herrings or didn't understand my request.

If you're not even capable of comprehending my arguments, you should probably just bow out now and save yourself some more humiliation.


----------



## Endless Mike (Nov 13, 2010)

Part 2 (Continued):



> You show  an approximation and have the reliable narrator tell you its infinite.  An example: At least one math teacher has drawn the infinity symbol and  said "This is infinite" or dotted down three dots after a numerical  progression and said "This means its infinite" or just gave you the pi  symbol and said "The numbers regress infinitely". You didn't stand up  and say "Bullshit, write that shit out in its entirety or I don't  fucking believe you!". Same here, you're disregarding the narrator  because its unreliable and placing emphasis on shown feats when that  alone can't show something endless.



You said it was an image, not narration.



> Its not that hard to rationalize. She means  I'll shove you into the worst one I can find not the worst there is.



You said "worst possible universe". You're backpeddling now.



> I'll  give you that its implicit but here: It proves that that the umineko  universe is one branching off into alternate possibilities with each  possibility representing a universe. And if its quantum branching then  its infinite.



No it's not. I already explained this.



> See above. After seeing above: to be more specific it shows that  their universe is one based on probability, with the witches having  probability based powers to manipulate their probability based setting.



Still not seeing the point here.



> The sky is blue, so what? The term "infinite time"  is conveniently placed there because we don't know how long it will take  and instead of making up numbers we just say that we enough time it  will eventually come to pass.



Exactly. Therefore, it's not really infinite.



> It does if you  exhaust all possible outcomes with each possibility branching off to  form a universe with even more possibilities.



Again, only if you assume quantum branching in each divergent universe, which has not been demonstrated.



> I thought we agreed  that marvel is full of shit and you should stop using false dichotomy?



No, your deluded mind thinks that, as it is the standard by which these terms are defined, and the word "omniverse" was invented and first used by a Marvel writer. If you're going to be using your own bullshit definition (which is completely useless as multiverse would cover it just fine) then at least point out that you're using your own definition.



> It is impossible to prove omnipotence. The definition of  "Prove" we're using is 3 and 4. That is proof by feats. The "prove" I'm  using is number 1. Its different from 3 and 4 because those are limited  to using empirical evidence or shown events. Number 1 includes that as  well as accepting narrative and exposition using the willingness to  suspend disbelief.
> 
> You know the variations of the word and their meaning depending on context already, don't play this game with me.



So, in other words, you're just saying it's possible, which is completely useless in a debate as it doesn't actually mean anything.


----------



## Red (Nov 14, 2010)

Endless Mike said:


> Can you read? *I asked for evidence of quantum branching in each divergent universe*,  not the prime one. All you did was serve me up one giant Red  Herring.


Watch yourself, your ignorance is showing. If you knew  anything about umineko you'd know that different Episodes are branched  off


EP1 is the primary universe and all subsequent universes (EP2-8) are  branches. Out of those branches of EP1, EP7 is a branch off of EP3. EP5  is still in limbo since Erika and Battler's alternate theories are  equal.


> BTW, "it felt" is hardly conclusive evidence of it being infinite


Drop  the selective reading bullshit. Five different individuals have said  the same thing: The possible universes are endless. 3 of them are  trans-dimensional multiversal beings, two of them are universal beings  and one of them is a normal human. Out of Five testimonies, you jump on  the one who you think is the weakest support. He's human, he has to go  by gut feelings so his narration is completely plausible. Don't use that  to excuse the other 4 testimonies.





> If it was, then the possibility would be infinitesimal, not one  in a quadrillion.


The word quadrillion is a hint for the player.  "Chances are one in a quadrillion" is a puzzle written above the church.  Its a major hint to who the culprit is and Chekhov's Gun.



> How would they know it was infinite, and not just bigger than they could count or see the end of?


The same way we know the progression 1,2,3.... is infinite and not just bigger than we could count or see the end off.



> Also I would like a source of all of these quotes.


Script ripped from the EP1-6.



> Don't make up your own definitions for terms that already have  established definitions. Just say multiverse, as by using the word  omniverse you are implying it to be something greater than it is.
> 
> Link removed


I'm not making up my own words. You know what a portmanteau is,  you know the etymology origin of "verse" and its meaning, you know the  definition of "omni". I'm not going to waste time with this semantics  nonsense. 

You're still using Marvel's definition. Stop it, that's a .


> It's not a fallacy if it's a policy here, and that policy exists for good reason.


. That's a fallacy. What ever policy we have here can and will be challenged and I don't expect your rebuttal to that to be 



> Proof that you don't comprehend the difference between a physical impossibility and a logical impossibility.


That's not what I'm saying. There is a difference, but that is  irrelevant. Logically impossible situations arise from physically  impossible premises and viceversa.

Lets run with your example: 2+2=5. That's illogical because its  physically impossible. You're violating the laws of conservation of  matter. 



> Then why does it happen?


I dunno and that's not relevant.



> Of course. But no feats, precedence, or powerscaling can ever be  sufficient to prove omnipotence. Any given feat you or anyone else can  think of will be infinitely less than what a true omnipotent could  do.


Thank you, now drop the nonsense of providing feats.


> Excuse me? You didn't even attempt to address my arguments, you made up  your own version of what I would say in the future and attacked it!  Anyone can see that you're the one being dishonest here.


I said Creators are Omnipotent. You asked for proof. I provided quotes.
I said quantum universes are infinite. You called bullshit. I gave you wiki links.
I said a quantum universe is all encompassing by its nature. You called bullshit. I gave you more wiki links.
Now you ask me to prove whether the umineko universe is quantum. I've made a chart and given you a run down.
I presented a definition of a well known word  while using two neutral definitions, you presented a  that fits your own needs.

Notice the trend here, with each point I bring up, you context and I  present proof and then you ask for more proof. This isn't the first time  I'm accusing you of moving the goalposts.





> Learn the difference between physical and logical  impossibilities. Logical impossibilities are unusable as  feats.


See above.





> Like I said before, you are implicitly assuming that quantum  branching occurs in each divergent universe, I requested proof of this  claim, but you either dodged it with red herrings or didn't understand  my request.


See above, I assumed you had rudimentary knowledge of  what you're arguing, but since you don't know what you're arguing  against then I specified where the divergent universes are created.



> *If you're not even capable of comprehending my arguments*,  you should probably just bow out now and save yourself some more  humiliation.


I don't understand your arguments because your  responses are "Nu huh" and fallacies. I'm not even debating any more,  all I'm doing is correcting you and copypasting corrections. 

Fallacies aside, you've been pulling out wrong facts. According to you  quantum universes are not infinite. When I posted references that proved  you wrong you swept that under the wrong. The next few posts is just  one long effort to move the goal posts.



Endless Mike said:


> Part 2 (Continued):
> You said it was an image, not narration.


 Please don't forget the plot of this debate .



> You said "worst possible universe". You're backpeddling now.


This shouldn't be that hard for you. She said worst possible universe, that's an open statement. She didn't specifically say "Worst possible universe in all of the omniverse", you're just assuming that because its convenient for you.



> No it's not. I already explained this.


No you didn't. You asserted it and made no attempt to back it up.



> Still not seeing the point here.


Think about it *real* hard. It'll come to you. If it doesn't then I can't help you.



> Exactly. Therefore, it's not really infinite.


Non-sequitar. There's a beginning and there's an end but lord knows what road you took to that.


> Again, only if you assume quantum branching in each divergent universe, which has not been demonstrated.


Read the story.




> No, your deluded mind thinks that, as it is the standard by which these terms are defined, and the word "omniverse" was invented and first used by a Marvel writer. If you're going to be using your own bullshit definition (which is completely useless as multiverse would cover it just fine) then at least point out that you're using your own definition.


Playing semantics (you're not using the definition I want you to use!) , Persuasive definition (I'm going to agree with standard definition of words!), appeal to false authority (A random marvel writer's term is the more legitimate definition! Fuck Websters dictionary!).



> So, in other words, you're just saying it's possible, which is completely useless in a debate as it doesn't actually mean anything.


You jumped a lot of hoops to rationalize something that stupid. I'm asking you to shut-up and look at whats presented. It really is that simple.


----------



## zenieth (Nov 15, 2010)

Man, is this even about the match anymore?


----------



## Raidou Kuzunoha (Nov 15, 2010)

zenieth said:


> Man, is this even about the match anymore?



Hellllllllllllll nooooooooooo.


----------



## Endless Mike (Nov 15, 2010)

Red said:


> Watch yourself, your ignorance is showing. If you knew  anything about umineko you'd know that different Episodes are branched  off
> 
> *snip*
> EP1 is the primary universe and all subsequent universes (EP2-8) are  branches. Out of those branches of EP1, EP7 is a branch off of EP3. EP5  is still in limbo since Erika and Battler's alternate theories are  equal.



Not what I was asking for. Direct continuation is different from quantum branching, you need to show that each decision point/wave function collapse in each divergent universe creates a new one. The fact that one of them is incapable of doing anything due to something being "equal" proves that special circumstances are required for branching in the first place and it doesn't happen naturally.



> Drop  the selective reading bullshit. Five different individuals have said  the same thing: The possible universes are endless. 3 of them are  trans-dimensional multiversal beings, two of them are universal beings  and one of them is a normal human. Out of Five testimonies, you jump on  the one who you think is the weakest support. He's human, he has to go  by gut feelings so his narration is completely plausible. Don't use that  to excuse the other 4 testimonies.



You were giving it as an example of someone actually seeing these infinite universes, and that was the only incident of it being directly encountered instead of just stated. I'm pointing out that your direct evidence is unreliable.



> The word quadrillion is a hint for the player.  "Chances are one in a quadrillion" is a puzzle written above the church.  Its a major hint to who the culprit is and Chekhov's Gun.



So it's not a literal statement? In that case, the entire quote is unreliable as the character is a liar.



> The same way we know the progression 1,2,3.... is infinite and not just bigger than we could count or see the end off.



That's a matter of an abstract logical construct, not an actual physical existence. The analogy does not hold.



> Script ripped from the EP1-6.



Screencaps please.



> I'm not making up my own words.



I never said you were. I said you were making up your own *definitions* of words. 



> You know what a portmanteau is,  you know the etymology origin of "verse" and its meaning, you know the  definition of "omni". I'm not going to waste time with this semantics  nonsense.



Except you didn't coin that word. It already existed and already had preexisting definitions. You can't just make up your own definition of a word based on your interpretation of its etymology, or else I can say that the word "paranormal" means a normal person wearing a parachute.



> You're still using Marvel's definition. Stop it, that's a .



Wrong. The term was coined by a Marvel writer, and it is most commonly used in the Marvel sense. You are making up your own definition for it which has never been used before, and furthermore, your definition is already covered under multiverse. Stop lying.



> . That's a fallacy. What ever policy we have here can and will be challenged and I don't expect your rebuttal to that to be



You just repeated your old argument and completely ignored my rebuttal. Do I really need to explain why subjective BS like "Author's Intent" is not applicable in a vs. debate?



> That's not what I'm saying. There is a difference, but that is  irrelevant. Logically impossible situations arise from physically  impossible premises and viceversa.
> 
> Lets run with your example: 2+2=5. That's illogical because its  physically impossible. You're violating the laws of conservation of  matter.



Wow, wrong. Again you prove yourself to be full of shit. You can violate CoM all you want and you still won't get 2 + 2 to equal 5. If you add 2 apples to 2 other apples and another apple magically appears out of thin air, that's still not 2 + 2 = 5, it's 2 + 2 + 1 = 5. 



> I dunno and that's not relevant.



Don't dismiss anything you can't answer as irrelevant, it's perfectly relevant since it casts heavy doubt on the claim of omnipotence.



> Thank you, now drop the nonsense of providing feats.



....What? 

You just took my argument and interpreted it completely ass-backwards!

I'm not saying "provide feats to prove omnipotence", I'm saying "your claim (and any claim) of omnipotence is bullshit, so we have to go by feats."

In other words, provide feats to argue against the feats of the other side, don't just try to claim "lol omnipotence I win".



> I said Creators are Omnipotent. You asked for proof. I provided quotes.



Wrong. I said you can't prove omnipotence, and it's a bullshit concept to argue about.



> I said quantum universes are infinite. You called bullshit. I gave you wiki links.



No, you gave a link of one possible interpretation without showing how it conformed to your argument.



> I said a quantum universe is all encompassing by its nature. You called bullshit. I gave you more wiki links.



See above



> Now you ask me to prove whether the umineko universe is quantum. I've made a chart and given you a run down.



No, I asked you to prove it matches the specific plausibility stated in that one section of the article you linked, which you have failed to do.



> I presented a definition of a well known word  while using two neutral definitions, you presented a  that fits your own needs.



Wrong, you made up your own definition in order to attempt to equivocate with what is commonly known as an omniverse, aka either the Marvel definition, or the "all fiction and real life" definition. You are the only one I have ever seen use your own bullshit definition, when the word multiverse covers it just fine. Meanwhile the other two definitions are the ones commonly used in the OBD and accepted.



> Notice the trend here, with each point I bring up, you context and I  present proof and then you ask for more proof. This isn't the first time  I'm accusing you of moving the goalposts.



No, the real trend is that you continuously lie and strawman my points. Furthermore, this response did not even address the part of the argument you quoted! You made up some false idea of how I would respond by asking for feats to prove omnipotence (even though that has been completely inconsistent with my stance from the beginning), and after I called you out on it you changed the subject and attempted to dodge.



> See above, I assumed you had rudimentary knowledge of  what you're arguing, but since you don't know what you're arguing  against then I specified where the divergent universes are created.



You specified a few individual ones, but no blanket proof that each one follows the MWI. Furthermore, it could easily be said that even if they do, it doesn't make a creator as powerful as you think, because it didn't create them all simultaneously. It could have just created one, which then branched by itself, like how using a match to light a fire that burns down a forest doesn't require the same power as just blowing up the forest with one attack.



> I don't understand your arguments because your  responses are "Nu huh" and fallacies. I'm not even debating any more,  all I'm doing is correcting you and copypasting corrections.



Obviously you would say that if you were unable to comprehend what I was trying to say. You're basically making a complete and utter fool of yourself right now, it's rather amusing actually.



> Fallacies aside, you've been pulling out wrong facts. According to you  quantum universes are not infinite. When I posted references that proved  you wrong you swept that under the wrong. The next few posts is just  one long effort to move the goal posts.



Again, wrong. You posted one possible interpretation, I asked you to prove that this fiction matched that interpretation, but you have failed to do so.



> Please don't forget the plot of this debate



What? You said an image but showed narration instead. That's lying.


----------



## Endless Mike (Nov 15, 2010)

Part 2 (Continued):



> This shouldn't be that hard for you. She said worst possible universe, that's an open statement. She didn't specifically say "Worst possible universe in all of the omniverse", you're just assuming that because its convenient for you.



"Worst possible" means just that, the worst one that is possible. That would include every possible universe in your falsely - called omniverse. You would have a point if she said "worst I could find", but she didn't. Therefore it is not infinite.



> Think about it *real* hard. It'll come to you. If it doesn't then I can't help you.



You are falsely assuming that manipulating probability = the specific version of the MWI you are referencing. Is Domino a multiverse creator now? 



> Non-sequitar. There's a beginning and there's an end but lord knows what road you took to that.



You yourself admitted it wouldn't take infinite time.



> Read the story.



When in a debate, the burden of proof is on YOU to provide evidence to back up your claims. If you can't do that, you can't just tell someone to go read/watch/play whatever you're arguing. I'm not going to do your work for you.

If someone came and said that X from Y fiction you've never heard of can beat all of your favorite characters, and when you asked for proof he just told you to read it, would you really accept that?



> Playing semantics (you're not using the definition I want you to use!)



No, you're not using the correct definition, since you're using a definition that *you just made up.* Obviously I interpreted it as meaning an established definition. I can't read your fucking mind.



> Persuasive definition (I'm going to agree with standard definition of words!),



That's what you're doing. I'm using an established and well - known definition, you're using one you just pulled out of your ass.




> appeal to false authority (A random marvel writer's term is the more legitimate definition! Fuck Websters dictionary!).



Last time I checked "omniverse" was not in the dictionary. The word was coined by the Marvel writer! In other words, he created the word and defined what it means! Do you get this?



> You jumped a lot of hoops to rationalize something that stupid. I'm asking you to shut-up and look at whats presented. It really is that simple.



You are the one making up your own bullshit definitions and trying to defend them over established and well - known definitions.



zenieth said:


> Man, is this even about the match anymore?



No, it's just another example of Red demonstrating off the Dunning-Kruger Effect.


----------



## Red (Nov 16, 2010)

Endless Mike said:


> Not what I was asking for. *Direct continuation* is different from quantum branching, you need to show that each decision point/wave function collapse in each divergent universe creates a new one. The fact that one of them is incapable of doing anything due to something being "equal" proves that special circumstances are required for branching in the first place and it doesn't happen naturally.


Its not a direct continuation you twit. Again proof you have no idea about what you're talking about. And each decision point collapsing to make a divergent universe? Quantum collapse isn't based solely on the decision, its based on probability. Showing divergent universes being created based on probable out comes is just as legit as universes based on character action and that's what I did here. Read the material before making yourself look like a moron, and use wiki, its free so you have no excuse not to.



> You were giving it as an example of someone actually seeing these infinite universes, and that was the only incident of it being directly encountered instead of just stated. I'm pointing out that your direct evidence is unreliable.


And I'm pointing out that none of the irrelevant nonsense you bring out makes me evidence unreliable because they're four more, each from a better source. 



> So it's not a literal statement? In that case, the entire quote is unreliable as the character is a liar.


Hasty generalization,  One part not being literal doesn't make the rest not literal. "Your mom has a vagina the size of a hallway, she's in the hospital with AIDS." that sentence is made from two parts: A non literal metaphor and a literal fact. The metaphor has no bearing on the truthfulness of the next part and claiming it does is a fallacy.



> That's a matter of an abstract logical construct, not an actual physical existence. The analogy does not hold.


Missed the similarity between the two situations 

Infinite sets don't have to be deemed to observed till the end to be deemed infinite. There are a number of ways to deem something infinite, in the real world we do so by looking at the mechanics of the set, in fiction we can chalk it up to cosmic awareness. You can do the same here, its not that hard.



> Screencaps please.


Get it yourself. I ripped the script from the dat archive and didn't use screencaps.



> I never said you were. I said you were making up your own *definitions* of words.


And if your dad had a vagina she'd be your mom. That changes nothing, the fact of the matter is this is a silly cop out. 



> Except you didn't coin that word. It already existed and already had preexisting definitions. You can't just make up your own definition of a word based on your interpretation of its etymology, or else I can say that the word "paranormal" means a normal person wearing a parachute.


Nice try, I didn't make up the word. But its cute that your still trying to use that as an excuse to cover your ass 


> Wrong. The term was coined by a Marvel writer, and it is most commonly used in the Marvel sense. You are making up your own definition for it which has never been used before, and furthermore, your definition is already covered under multiverse. Stop lying.


Oh look,  again.



> You just repeated your old argument and completely ignored my rebuttal. *Do I really need to explain why subjective BS like "Author's Intent" is not applicable in a vs. debate?*


You were wrong then and you're wrong now, but hey if you want to spew out shit time and time again, who am I to stop you? Oh and "Ignored my rebuttal" when any idiot following the debating is another standard internet debate stall tactic. Again this is cute.



> Wow, wrong. Again you prove yourself to be full of shit. You can violate CoM all you want and you still won't get 2 + 2 to equal 5. If you add 2 apples to 2 other apples and another apple magically appears out of thin air, that's still not 2 + 2 = 5, it's 2 + 2 + 1 = 5.


Repeat after me "Mathematics is a science, science is based on physical laws, differing physical laws are in different universes, therefore different universes have different mathematics". Do you know why 1+1 = 2? That is because your ancestors the apes looked at a mango and realized that if you take one mango and put it together with another mango you have both mangos. And then the formed a system of mathematics based on that. Now if we have alternate dimension Mike's great ape ancestors in a universe where adding matter produces more matter; the apes would see that a manga and another mango added together produces those other mangos and an extra one they'll evolve a system where 1+1=3. Effectively making prehistoric apes smarter than you.




> Don't dismiss anything you can't answer as irrelevant, it's perfectly relevant since it casts heavy doubt on the claim of omnipotence.


Red herrings. Red herrings everywhere.jpg




> ....What?
> 
> You just took my argument and interpreted it completely ass-backwards!
> 
> ...





> Wrong. I said you can't prove omnipotence, and it's a bullshit concept to argue about.


Congratulations, you replaced a retarded argument with an even more retarded argument! Well since you've flat out stated your stance it makes it that much easier to poke holes in it. 


> No, you gave a link of one possible interpretation without showing how it conformed to your argument.


I gave link to one possible interpretation that has my argument nearly word for word. If you don't see how a link that says "The quantum multiverse is infinite and that type of infinite is really really big" doesn't conform to an argument that says "Umineko is a quantum multiverse and a quantum multiverse is infinite and that type of infinite is really really big", then I honestly can't help you.


> No, I asked you to prove it matches the specific plausibility stated in that one section of the article you linked, which you have failed to do.


See above.



> Wrong, you made up your own definition in order to attempt to equivocate with what is commonly known as an omniverse, aka either the Marvel definition, or the "all fiction and real life" definition. You are the only one I have ever seen use your own bullshit definition, when the word multiverse covers it just fine. Meanwhile the other two definitions are the ones commonly used in the OBD and accepted.


Oh look, its  again. Silly mike, when will you stop using fallacious arguments in your rebuttal?




> No, the real trend is that you continuously lie and strawman my points. Furthermore, this response did not even address the part of the argument you quoted! You made up some false idea of how I would respond by asking for feats to prove omnipotence (even though that has been completely inconsistent with my stance from the beginning), and after I called you out on it you changed the subject and attempted to dodge.


Again, this is standard bullshit I expect from youtube Goku VS Superman debates and gamefaqs idiots and not you. I pointed out the contradiction in your argument and extrapolated an expected reply to call you out on. That's a standard in debating. Maybe I should have waited until you did post that idiotic nonsense before calling you an idiot for it, that way you can't back peddal. Don't worry, I won't make that mistake again. I promise.




> You specified a few individual ones, but no blanket proof that each one follows the MWI. Furthermore, it could easily be said that even if they do, it doesn't make a creator as powerful as you think, because it didn't create them all simultaneously. It could have just created one, which then branched by itself, like how using a match to light a fire that burns down a forest doesn't require the same power as just blowing up the forest with one attack.


"No Blanket proof" *Ignore character statements*
When I was three years old I found out "Maybe if I close my eyes and pretend its not there it'll go away" tactic didn't work and stopped it. You should stop your as well.


> Obviously you would say that if you were unable to comprehend what I was trying to say. You're basically making a complete and utter fool of yourself right now, it's rather amusing actually.


If pointing out how asinine your half-baked rebuttals are is foolish then I'd rather be a foolish fool.


----------



## Red (Nov 16, 2010)

> Again, wrong. You posted one possible interpretation, I asked you to  prove that this fiction matched that interpretation, but you have failed  to do so.


Ignoring evidence. Fallacy, stop it please.



> What? You said an image but showed narration instead. That's  lying.


Just say you didn't get the point and lets move  on.





Endless Mike said:


> Part 2 (Continued):
> 
> "Worst possible" means just that, the worst one that is possible. That   would include every possible universe in your falsely - called   omniverse. You would have a point if she said "worst I could find", but   she didn't. Therefore it is not infinite.


 That's your   interpretation of an open ended statement, no wonder it's the retarded   interpretation.


> You are falsely assuming that manipulating probability = the specific   version of the MWI you are referencing. Is Domino a multiverse creator   now?


I   don't think you understood the reason behind the examples. Reread it   and try again. And if you still don't get it I'll go over it again for   you slowly.


> You yourself admitted it wouldn't take infinite time.


See above. 



> When in a debate, the burden of proof is on YOU to provide evidence to  back up your claims. If you can't do that, you can't just tell someone  to go read/watch/play whatever you're arguing. I'm not going to do your  work for you.
> 
> If someone came and said that X from Y fiction you've never heard of can  beat all of your favorite characters, and when you asked for proof he  just told you to read it, would you really accept that?


Burden  of proof is on me to provide the claim NOT hold your hand and read the  story out for you. The reason I said "Read the story" is because I'm  having to constantly explain basic facts of the story to you. See the  part where you called it a "Direct continuation" when its common  knowledge that its not. Next time you have an urge to be stupid about a  topic, at least have some knowledge of the topic. Read the wiki, ask  other fans of the story whatever, just don't waste my time and expect me  to humor you too long.



> No, you're not using the correct definition, since you're using a definition that *you just made up.* Obviously I interpreted it as meaning an established definition. I can't read your fucking mind.


I'm not ask you to read my mind, I'm asking you to pick up a  damn dictionary. Its free on the net, you have no reason NOT to be able  to double check. And again don't expect me to use Marvel's shit  definitions.



> That's what you're doing. I'm using an established and well - known  definition, you're using one you just pulled out of your  ass.


Marvel using one form of a word doesn't make it established.


> Last time I checked "omniverse" was not in the dictionary. The word was  coined by the Marvel writer! In other words, he created the word and  defined what it means! Do you get this?


I said look up the word  Omni and look up the etymology of verse and tell me what you get when  you put the words together. Now which of the following definitions of  the word do you you think fits this discussion? Its simple, you don't  need a fucking map.




> You are the one making up your own bullshit definitions and trying to  defend them over established and well - known definitions.


Yes,  if marvel uses the word then its official! I would think you can't get  dumber if you tried but you would always surprise me.


zenieth said:


> Man, is this even about the match anymore?


  For me it is, but it also serves the second purpose of educating Mike so its all good.


----------



## Rene (Nov 16, 2010)

Endless Mike said:


> John Constantine once defeated some beings that could do that


Yeah but John Constatine is a certified badass.


----------



## Endless Mike (Nov 17, 2010)

First of all, I thought you knew better than revenge negging. Then again, that's what I get for overestimating you. 

BTW, I only insulted your arguments in my neg, whereas you insulted me directly. Therefore, you have been reported. Enjoy your ban.



Red said:


> Its not a direct continuation you twit. Again proof you have no idea about what you're talking about. And each decision point collapsing to make a divergent universe? Quantum collapse isn't based solely on the decision, its based on probability.



That is what I meant - quantum decision point, aka a point where branching is possible.



> Showing divergent universes being created based on probable out comes is just as legit as universes based on character action and that's what I did here. Read the material before making yourself look like a moron, and use wiki, its free so you have no excuse not to.



You didn't even answer my damn question, you just dodged it again. Showing one one continuation from a divergent universe doesn't prove that quantum branching occurs in each divergent universe.



> And I'm pointing out that none of the irrelevant nonsense you bring out makes me evidence unreliable because they're four more, each from a better source.



Statements, you mean, which are red herrings anyway since they only refer to quantum branching in the prime universe.



> Hasty generalization,  One part not being literal doesn't make the rest not literal. "Your mom has a vagina the size of a hallway, she's in the hospital with AIDS." that sentence is made from two parts: A non literal metaphor and a literal fact. The metaphor has no bearing on the truthfulness of the next part and claiming it does is a fallacy.



Except the first one is obviously an embellishment and the other is not. Hell, using your own example against you you would take the infinite part to be the wrong one since it was the exaggerated part. Any deceitful or incorrect statement automatically casts doubt on statements made by the same character, especially if they're in the same speech.



> Missed the similarity between the two situations
> 
> Infinite sets don't have to be deemed to observed till the end to be deemed infinite. There are a number of ways to deem something infinite, in the real world we do so by looking at the mechanics of the set, in fiction we can chalk it up to cosmic awareness. You can do the same here, its not that hard.



Hint: Infinite physical existences do not occur in real life. Furthermore, your "cosmic awareness" argument is countered by the fact that one character said that she had only visited/was aware of billions, if she had awareness of infinite universes then that number wouldn't be a limitation.



> Get it yourself. I ripped the script from the dat archive and didn't use screencaps.



Concession Accepted.



> And if your dad had a vagina she'd be your mom. That changes nothing, the fact of the matter is this is a silly cop out.



It proves you were strawmanning me, aka being dishonest. At least you admit your mistake.



> Nice try, I didn't make up the word. But its cute that your still trying to use that as an excuse to cover your ass



*I NEVER SAID YOU MADE UP THE FUCKING WORD!* In fact I made that very clear in my response directly previous to the one you just quoted! The analogy I gave used a preexisting word! How the hell do you get the idea that I'm claiming you made up the word from that?

By saying "you didn't coin the word" I was simply stating that you can't just make up your own definition for it.



> Oh look,  again.



Stop falsely accusing me of fallacies.

Let's look at your link:



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> A persuasive definition is a form of definition which purports to describe the 'true' or 'commonly accepted' meaning of a term, *while in reality stipulating an uncommon or altered use*, usually to support an argument for some view, or to create or alter rights, duties or crimes. The terms thus defined will often involve emotionally charged but imprecise notions, such as "freedom", "terrorism", "democracy" etc.



Emphasis mine. I am citing two definitions that have been used by Marvel as well as many OBDers and other people in various forums, and are commonly understood on this forum.

You are citing a definition that you just made up which has never been used before anywhere but in your posts.

Which one is "uncommon or altered"?



> You were wrong then and you're wrong now, but hey if you want to spew out shit time and time again, who am I to stop you? Oh and "Ignored my rebuttal" when any idiot following the debating is another standard internet debate stall tactic. Again this is cute.



Except you did ignore it. Appealing to subjective bullshit like author's intent makes any debate completely impossible to resolve. Authors never intended for their fictional creations to be pit in hypothetical matches against other fictional creations by other authors, so we're already violating their intent by doing so.



> Repeat after me "Mathematics is a science, science is based on physical laws, differing physical laws are in different universes, therefore different universes have different mathematics". Do you know why 1+1 = 2? That is because your ancestors the apes looked at a mango and realized that if you take one mango and put it together with another mango you have both mangos. And then the formed a system of mathematics based on that.



Wrong. Mathematics is a branch of philosophy. It can be applied to physics, but it is not defined by physics.



> Now if we have alternate dimension Mike's great ape ancestors in a universe where adding matter produces more matter; the apes would see that a manga and another mango added together produces those other mangos and an extra one they'll evolve a system where 1+1=3. Effectively making prehistoric apes smarter than you.



More like smarter than you, since all you did was repeat my original analogy and ignore the fucking point. If you put 1 mango together with another mango and a third mango magically appears out of nowhere, that's still 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, not 1 + 1 = 3. Adding quantities together and coming up with a result means that the sum of the original quantities and the result are equal, and always were. In other words, the two mangos must have also been three mangos simultaneously. In other words 2 = 3. This is logically impossible, no matter what laws of physics you subscribe to.





			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> A logically possible proposition is one that can be asserted without implying a logical contradiction. This is to say that a proposition is logically possible if there is some coherent way for the world to be, under which the proposition would be true. Thus, "the sky is blue" (and all other actually true propositions) is logically possible: there exists some logically coherent way for the world to be such that it is true, viz., the way that the world actually is. But this "way for the world to be" need not be the way the world actually is; it need only be logically coherent. So, for example, the false proposition the sky is green is also logically possible, so long as we are able (as we indeed seem to be) to conceive of some logically coherent world in which the sky is green. Philosophers generally consider logical possibility to be the broadest sort of subjunctive possibility in modal logic.





> Red herrings. Red herrings everywhere



How is it a red herring? Explain why an omnipotent would ever need to do that?



> Congratulations, you replaced a retarded argument with an even more retarded argument! Well since you've flat out stated your stance it makes it that much easier to poke holes in it.



Those two quotes don't contradict each other at all. Omnipotence is a logically impossible concept, impossible to prove, and impossible to debate.

If two characters have comparable feats, at least to the point where you can't easily determine a victor from feats alone, it doesn't matter if one is stated to be omnipotent or not, that is a non-argument as it is pointlessly unprovable. In addition, it attempts to give one author jurisdiction over other fictional works, as someone's idea of omnipotence isn't necessarily the same as another person's. 

"Bill can do everything in the universe - he's omnipotent".

"Well Bob can do everything in every universe"

"Huh, I never thought about more than one universe. I guess Bob is more powerful".


----------



## Endless Mike (Nov 17, 2010)

Part 2 (Continued):



> I gave link to one possible interpretation that has my argument nearly word for word. If you don't see how a link that says "The quantum multiverse is infinite and that type of infinite is really really big" doesn't conform to an argument that says "Umineko is a quantum multiverse and a quantum multiverse is infinite and that type of infinite is really really big", then I honestly can't help you.



Because, as I have repeatedly pointed out before, the link covers quantum branching in each divergent universe, which you have yet to provide any evidence for. Also, I see you're finally using the correct term, "multiverse", instead of your bullshit made up definition of "omniverse".



> Oh look, its  again. Silly mike, when will you stop using fallacious arguments in your rebuttal?



See above



> Again, this is standard bullshit I expect from youtube Goku VS Superman debates and gamefaqs idiots and not you. I pointed out the contradiction in your argument and extrapolated an expected reply to call you out on. That's a standard in debating. Maybe I should have waited until you did post that idiotic nonsense before calling you an idiot for it, that way you can't back peddal. Don't worry, I won't make that mistake again. I promise.



Except your extrapolation was not only incorrect, but completely inconsistent with my entire stance which I had made clear at the very beginning of this argument. Maybe if you would get off your fucking high horse for a second you would realize that that might just mean that you don't understand my arguments. I know, shocking, but that's what your posts say.



> "No Blanket proof" *Ignore character statements* When I was three years old I found out "Maybe if I close my eyes and pretend its not there it'll go away" tactic didn't work and stopped it. You should stop your as well.



You have cited no character statements that imply quantum branching in each divergent universe.

Also, I like how you *completely ignored* my other argument.

In case you missed it:



			
				Me said:
			
		

> Furthermore, it could easily be said that even if they do, it doesn't make a creator as powerful as you think, because it didn't create them all simultaneously. It could have just created one, which then branched by itself, like how using a match to light a fire that burns down a forest doesn't require the same power as just blowing up the forest with one attack.






> If pointing out how asinine your half-baked rebuttals are is foolish then I'd rather be a foolish fool.



Too bad none of your arguments even come close to addressing my points.



Red said:


> Ignoring evidence. Fallacy, stop it please.



First of all, ignoring evidence isn't a fallacy.

Second of all, what evidence? You have provided no evidence that quantum branching occurs in each divergent universe. In fact, you provided an example of a universe where no quantum branching occurs, which knocks this whole house of cards down.



> Just say you didn't get the point and lets move  on.



This is rich. You're the one who is constantly failing to understand my points.



> That's your   interpretation of an open ended statement, no wonder it's the retarded   interpretation.



No, it's the correct interpretation.



> pos·si·ble
> /ˈpɒsəbəl/ Show Spelled[pos-uh-buhl] Show IPA –adjective
> 1.
> that may or can be, exist, happen, be done, be used, etc.: a disease with no possible cure.
> ...



Just going "nuh - uh!" isn't going to change the dictionary. Then again, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, as you are very fond of making up your own definitions of words. 



> I don't think



No, you don't.

Oh, and I understand perfectly. You're trying to claim that since each of the alternate universes are stated to be possibilities, that means that quantum branching occurs in every one of these "possibilities" ad infinitum, which you have not shown to be the case. It's one big hasty generalization fallacy.



> See above.



See above where?



> Burden  of proof is on me to provide the claim NOT hold your hand and read the  story out for you. The reason I said "Read the story" is because I'm  having to constantly explain basic facts of the story to you. See the  part where you called it a "Direct continuation" when its common  knowledge that its not. Next time you have an urge to be stupid about a  topic, at least have some knowledge of the topic. Read the wiki, ask  other fans of the story whatever, just don't waste my time and expect me  to humor you too long.



Sorry, but it doesn't fucking work like that. You make a claim, you provide the evidence. You don't tell your opponent to go dig it up for you. If I've gotten something wrong about a fiction I've never read, then it's up to you to point it out.

And don't say "don't post in a thread if you're not familiar with the subject matter". As I have stated before, I don't care about this match. My purpose of posting in this thread is not to argue that one side would win or lose, it's to point out your blatant violation of logic.



> I'm not ask you to read my mind, I'm asking you to pick up a  damn dictionary. Its free on the net, you have no reason NOT to be able  to double check. And again don't expect me to use Marvel's shit  definitions.


 


Oops.

Looks like the word isn't in the dictionary. Therefore, you can't appeal to it as any higher authority.



> Marvel using one form of a word doesn't make it established.



It goddamn well makes it more established than some poster on an internet forum making up their own definition 



> I said look up the word  Omni and look up the etymology of verse and tell me what you get when  you put the words together.



Omni - all
Verse - As used in the context of universe, it is the past tense of "vertere", meaning to turn.

So, "all turned".

Sorry, not doing shit.

If you take "verse" as simply a shortened version of "universe", you get "all universes".

That supports the "all fiction and real life" definition better than yours, because if it meant all universes in any given fiction, as you seem to think, then even fictions with only one universe would be omniverses, because if there's only one universe, than that's all there is.

So according to your logic, Naruto and One Piece are omniverses 



> Now which of the following definitions of  the word do you you think fits this discussion? Its simple, you don't  need a fucking map.



None of the definitions fit this discussion because your definition is not a real definition, it's something you pulled out of your rectum. There is already a word for what you describe - that is simply "multiverse".



> Yes,  if marvel uses the word then its official! I would think you can't get  dumber if you tried but you would always surprise me.



So a published story coining a new word and providing a definition for it is not official, but some random poster on an internet forum making up their own definition for it is?



> For me it is, but it also serves the second purpose of educating Mike so its all good.



The only thing you're educating me about is how utterly clueless you can be.


----------



## MichaelUN89 (Nov 17, 2010)

I do not know what the hell is happening here and I am too lazy to read all this shit.


But I read somewhere over there that Umineko just has billions of kakeras


Is that right? 


Well  Lambdadelta said "among the billions", but she did not meant to say there are just billions of kakeras. It was just a fancy way to say "many universes".


Like when you say "I already repeated myself over 9000 times", obviously you do not really mean that you repeated the same thing over 9000 times. Just several times.

But in this case Umineko does have infinite universes. It was stated that there are infinite universes and during the tea party of episode 4 we  see actual evidence that suggests that Umineko is indeed formed by infinite universes


*^This  is naturally far more than billions*

Besides that:

1) We have the GOlden Land and Purgatory which are stated and hinted to be higher dimensional worlds. 
2) We have Lamdadelta and Bernaksterl who are stated/hinted to be much higher dimensional Beings. IIRC Ange Ushiromiya stated: "It is strange... but the aura of those witches is different, like if they  were superior beings from a much higher dimension". ANd Bernkastel sates that Ange is right.
3) We have creators who are stated by the author and visual novel to be capable of creating everything. 
4) Lamdadelta  the witch of the absolute a high cosmic reality warper stated "The creator, omnipotent, omniscient and creates everything".  And naturally the creators are stated by both Lamda and the author to be on a much higher level than the voyagers. 
6) We have the Hirugashi no naku koro ni verse. This universe  supposedly was created as the  result of the games between Bern and Lamda. 


So I do not know what is going on here. But just wanted to clarify few things.


----------



## Endless Mike (Nov 17, 2010)

I was just shooting down Red's travesty of logic, such as assuming omnipotence is actually a logically consistent and applicable concept in a debate, making up his own bullshit definitions of words, and distorting scientific theories to fit his bullshit arguments. I don't care about the match or anything else like that.


----------



## zenieth (Nov 17, 2010)

Doesn't that post actually place a finite number on the Umineko verse?


----------



## MichaelUN89 (Nov 17, 2010)

zenieth said:


> Doesn't that post actually place a finite number on the Umineko verse?



No. 

The  pic simply shows  the universe number "5 and a shitload of numbers".  

It simply is a random universe that Bern and Lamdadelta decided to visit, merely to take a break before the next game. 

But before the tea party and the end of the fourth game. 

This is what the witches stated: 


Bern: Ok... I give up. You won Lamda, I do not care any more about this game. Now it is so boring. Adios 

Lamda: But no!! Wait!!! If you go away , the chances I find you again in this endless sea of kakeras is 1/quadrillion for the next  "*big number* of years.

Then during the tea party we see evidence that supports the statement of infinite universes.

*I do not remember how many years**


----------



## Weather (Nov 17, 2010)

> Doesn't that post actually place a finite number on the Umineko verse?



No because that's not the *Last* universe in the sea of Kakeras. Is just one of Maaaany others.

The sea of Kakeras has the Higurashiverse, Uminekoverse and hell knows how many (These two were just Two fragments that subdivided in many others covering every History of these verses)

Higurashiverse: Onikakushi-hen, Watanagashi-hen, Tatarigoroshi-hen, Himatsubushi-hen, Meakashi-hen, Tsumiboroshi-hen, Minagoroshi-hen, Matsuribayashi-hen, Yoigoshi-hen and many more (There are others besides the novel, Yoigoshi is manga exclusively but is canon, not counting the DS Side stories that are canon too.)

Uminekoverse (Until now): Legend of golden witch, Turn of the golden witch, Banquet of the golden witch, Alliance of the golden witch, End of the golden witch, Dawn of the golden witch, Requiem of the golden witch.

And that's just the ones that were showed (Two Fragments that subdivided into these universes) and the sea has infinite Fragments that divide into more fragments.

That how sickly big is When they Cry.


----------



## MichaelUN89 (Nov 17, 2010)

Weather said:


> No because that's not the *Last* universe in the sea of Kakeras. Is just one of Maaaany others.
> 
> The sea of Kakeras has the Higurashiverse, Uminekoverse and hell knows how many (These two were just Two fragments that subdivided in many others covering every History of these verses)
> 
> ...




I did not know that >_>

Anyway I am posting this video since I love this  bitches and trolls witches 

[YOUTUBE]ZH_0bX7eWAU[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Crimson Dragoon (Nov 17, 2010)

Dark Tower beats them both


----------



## Weather (Nov 17, 2010)

MichaelUN89 said:


> I did not know that >_>
> 
> Anyway I am posting this video since I love this  bitches and trolls witches
> 
> [YOUTUBE]ZH_0bX7eWAU[/YOUTUBE]



Yup Actually I forgot some names like Onisarashi-hen and the DS ones.

Also you beat me to it I was gonna post that video >.>. Bern and Lambda are just awesome.


----------



## MichaelUN89 (Nov 17, 2010)

Weather said:


> Yup Actually I forgot some names like Onisarashi-hen and the DS ones.
> 
> Also you beat me to it I was gonna post that video >.>. Bern and Lambda are just awesome.



O snap.

And yea they are freaking awesome.  Bern and Lamda are probably two of my favorite characters among the world of anime and manga. 

I love the last minutes of that video (before the credits)


----------



## Weather (Nov 17, 2010)

> And yea they are freaking awesome. Bern and Lamda are probably two of my favorite characters among the world of anime and manga.
> 
> I love the last minutes of that video (before the credits)



That makes me want to read the novels again >.> I'm getting and Umineko Set.


----------



## MichaelUN89 (Nov 17, 2010)

Weather said:


> That makes me want to read the novels again >.> I'm getting and Umineko Set.



Haha yea

And it makes me want a hamburger  as well





rofl


----------



## zenieth (Nov 17, 2010)

Seriously, that's almost Zun level art. The fact that they can place numbers continues to contradict infinity.


----------



## MichaelUN89 (Nov 17, 2010)

zenieth said:


> Seriously, *that's almost Zun level art. *The fact that they can place numbers continues to contradict infinity.



And what has this  supposed to do with the topic?
Anyway the art is awful yea. But that was when the Author lacked of budget and resourced to make the visual novel.
But with the time they have prettied up the novel 
Also let me add that the music is darn good and notable japanese compositors have worked on many OST of the series   and the series as well has some characters with pretty interesting and sophisticated personalities.


----------



## Raidou Kuzunoha (Nov 17, 2010)

zenieth said:


> *Seriously, that's almost Zun level art.* The fact that they can place numbers continues to contradict infinity.



They did make an updated version for PS3.


----------



## zenieth (Nov 17, 2010)

I should reword that.

Placing numbers doesn't make it finite. It's the way that the numbers were used.

It'll take me some such number of some such years to find you amongst all the some such big ass universes. This would imply that there'd be a group to narrow down.


----------



## ~Greed~ (Nov 17, 2010)

zenieth said:


> Seriously, that's almost Zun level art. The fact that they can place numbers continues to contradict infinity.



Oh yea, the art is completely terrible. Some of the worst art Ive ever seen actually. But it has a really good story and characters, which make up for that.


----------



## Weather (Nov 17, 2010)

> It'll take me some such number of some such years to find you amongst all the some such big ass universes. This would imply that there'd be a group to narrow down.



And that probablity that Lambadelta stated could be just her talking crap you know...

Another Possibilty? That *Group* Could mean the universes were bern would be... (Universes that aren't boring... Bern hates boredom.)


----------



## Gain (Nov 17, 2010)

the art is amazing 

wouldn't have taken a second glance otherwise


----------



## zenieth (Nov 17, 2010)

Then how are we supposed to take their statements seriously?


----------



## Weather (Nov 17, 2010)

Because she was you know... Begging Bern to Stay? (you also saw how much Lambda likes to play with numbers... in the vid, and by saying the Billions.)

EDIT: The Probability that two voyager witches would encounter twice was stated to be a *Miracle* Not with numbers, in the novel.


----------



## MichaelUN89 (Nov 17, 2010)

zenieth said:


> I should reword that.
> 
> Placing numbers doesn't make it finite. It's the way that the numbers were used.
> 
> It'll take me some such number of some such years to find you amongst all the some such big ass universes. This would imply that there'd be a group to narrow down.



1) The thing is that we are talking  about a high dimensional witch who  has an eternity to  do whatever she wants.  100 years are for her like a child's game. And the eternity does not represent a big deal for her. Keep in mind she is a cruel witch with the power to create worlds. 

2) I already told you that it just a fancy way to say  that  she is going to work really hard to look for the worst *possible* punishment. 


3) Get it?


----------



## zenieth (Nov 17, 2010)

Alright I guess, how does this help them?


----------



## Weather (Nov 17, 2010)

I think we all already know that Umineko Losses. 
I'm Just clearing stuff. (Featherine the last witch that appeared should be easily Multiversal, as Bern stated that she was just her *Piece*, and Bern & Lambda could be Multiversal as well as they travel Screwing universes and multiverses for the Lulz.)


----------



## MichaelUN89 (Nov 17, 2010)

> Alright I guess, how does this help them?



Against SMT? 

I was not even interested about the match. I was merely clarifying some stuff.


----------



## Crimson Dragoon (Nov 18, 2010)

still gets its shit pushed in by Dark Tower


----------



## MichaelUN89 (Nov 18, 2010)

Crimson Dragoon said:


> still gets its shit pushed in by Dark Tower



I just started reading dark tower series few days ago... I am still with the gunman. So far good shit.


----------



## Weather (Nov 18, 2010)

^Got that book too. Though I haven't started it. 

School keeps me busy


----------



## Crimson Dragoon (Nov 18, 2010)

technically, pretty much any Stephen King work is Dark Tower material, seeing as how they share a megaverse and all


----------



## MichaelUN89 (Nov 18, 2010)

Crimson Dragoon said:


> technically, pretty much any Stephen King work is Dark Tower material, seeing as how they share a megaverse and all



I was under that idea, but I was not sure since they told me that there are other works besides the dark tower series.


----------



## Crimson Dragoon (Nov 18, 2010)

MichaelUN89 said:


> I was under that idea, but I was not sure since they told me that there are other works besides the dark tower series.


apparently, King makes a lot of callbacks to his previous works

the Dark Tower series might be his ultimate callback, so to speak


----------



## MichaelUN89 (Nov 18, 2010)

Crimson Dragoon said:


> apparently, King makes a lot of callbacks to his previous works
> 
> the Dark Tower series might be his ultimate callback, so to speak


oh I see.




Weather said:


> No I Haven't,
> I'm too honest if I don't buy them I don't have them



You had to be a good kid 
But what about manga  ?   jk

But seriously there are some cases when there is not enough budget to buy certain books or  encyclopedias. 

Few weeks ago I wanted to buy a book of physiology, but... the price of this thing was over 300 dollars

Yet nothing compared to  some encyclopedias for some medical specialities. Those are around over 1000 dollars


----------



## Crimson Dragoon (Nov 18, 2010)

MichaelUN89 said:


> oh I see.





there should be way more than that


----------



## The Bite of the She-Wolf (Nov 18, 2010)

MichaelUN89 said:


> I just started reading dark tower series few days ago... I am still with the gunman. So far good shit.







MichaelUN89 said:


> I was under that idea, but I was not sure since they told me that there are other works besides the dark tower series.



The Dark Tower is the lynchpin series. Mileage varies on it being King's best work, others swear by The Stand or It.

But all or most of King's other short stories and novels contain references to each other DT included, because the setting encompasses all of them.

For example The Stand contains references to Firestarter (the Shop government outfit is in both novels) and The Shining, while the villain of The Stand is also a key player in The Dark Tower, Eyes of the Dragon and (much more secondarily) Hearts In Atlantis.

There are more universes that are named by story name in DT. Sometimes the only divergence between 2 of them is having a different beverage brand name. Another example is Desperation and The Regulators, novels that have the same villain and characters but totally different events and setting (someone who survives Desperation is one of the first characters to die in The Regulators) because the universes are different.

Example of DT connections:



If we included all connections including the most peripheral ones, that would look bigger.


----------

