Wesker018
He/Him- 1,254
- 1,330
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Demon King Daimao High 1A+ CRT
- Thread starter BlazeISbot111
- Start date
- 1,796
- 831
Excel makes the most sense here to me.
- 458
- 1,369
TL:
I haven't read all the arguments from both sides, but from what I understand, most of the arguments stem from the Afterlife and its nature.
An example is "Takimiya drew his sword, and in parallel, his opponent readied his bow".
So all those possible worlds exist at the same time infinitely, but the Afterlife can transform into any one of them. In no way does it say or imply that it is the Logical Space itself.
So for example, it can transform from a World representing the statement "there exists only an apple" to whatever else.
Wouldn't this mean there is no problem with the size of the Afterlife at a given point, as its transformative?
After that, the only possible anti feat would be if it cannot transform into certain things.
One should also take into account if that is a problem with the Afterlife's transformative nature itself or Akuto's mental limitations.
I think this can qualify for High 1-A+ (Type 1) in itself, while the simultaneously occuring/existing possible worlds would be High 1-A+ (Type 2). However, I'm still reading the arguments from both sides (there is so much to cover), so I'm neutral at the moment. Feel free to add things by replying to me, but please also keep them short and not overly lengthy!
I haven't read all the arguments from both sides, but from what I understand, most of the arguments stem from the Afterlife and its nature.
Essentially, it means that rather than the Afterlife being the Logical Space containing all logically possible worlds, it can instead transform into any logically possible world. About the "Parallel Worlds", it is not about arrangement (like Parallel Lines) but simply running concurrently or existing at the same time.
An example is "Takimiya drew his sword, and in parallel, his opponent readied his bow".
So all those possible worlds exist at the same time infinitely, but the Afterlife can transform into any one of them. In no way does it say or imply that it is the Logical Space itself.
So for example, it can transform from a World representing the statement "there exists only an apple" to whatever else.
Wouldn't this mean there is no problem with the size of the Afterlife at a given point, as its transformative?
After that, the only possible anti feat would be if it cannot transform into certain things.
One should also take into account if that is a problem with the Afterlife's transformative nature itself or Akuto's mental limitations.
I think this can qualify for High 1-A+ (Type 1) in itself, while the simultaneously occuring/existing possible worlds would be High 1-A+ (Type 2). However, I'm still reading the arguments from both sides (there is so much to cover), so I'm neutral at the moment. Feel free to add things by replying to me, but please also keep them short and not overly lengthy!
- 899
- 360
Disagree with the OP. Agree with Excel
ShinMaximillion
Username Only- 605
- 1,743
Well... Ehh...I mean, dawg the integrity of Star Makers cosmology tramples on DKD, this isn't even close. Star Maker takes ontology seriously, DKD is cool and all, you can take away a lot of thought experiments behind it's ideas. But I'm sorry bro, Star Maker tramples on by orders of magnitude. Star Maker would be High 1-A+ even without that reference to Logical Potentiality.
It doesn't even use modal realism, it's closer to modal idealism. And furthermore, unlike this bare usage and barely substantiated (on the basis of ontology atleast) of possible worlds in DKD. Star Maker has good grounds for self-predication, which is the closest you can get to what the laws of thought are, if they were to being actual conditions for how all things are rather than just being how all things ought to be reasoned as.
Because it goes out of its way, to express itself as a unity that simultaneously contemplates everything. That's literally the closest thing to tier 0 by definition, such a being cannot be defined under the foundations of anything other than High 1-A+. It doesn't help that it borrows analogues from Hegelian philosophy. Which completely synthesizes being, logic in the unity of immediacy and mediation that which we call the Absolute Spirit. Especially in regard to the whole 'the creative aspect begins in infancy'. Mentioning Star Maker as if these situations are comparable, only makes DKD look worse unironically.
Like pick any other verse as an example to vent with about how vsbw is implicitly not being fair to DKD. Because Star Maker IS serious by far with its metaphysics, and express its metaphysics with a sense of integrity that.. DKD will absolutely never compete with Star Maker unless Mizuki locks in and writes something else.
Star Maker is clear on what type of union the Eternal Spirit is, what it's mode of existence is (contemplative unitarily/self-contemplative), unchanging, and perfect.
False. How broad metaphysical possibilities are, depends on the philosopher. There are accounts of metaphysical possibilities as broader than alethic modality, infact as absolute alethic modality:
Again, you keep talking about these philosophical notions without understanding that there's alottttttt of nuance to this. Nuance that most fictional verses will never care for, modal realism sucks. It sucks okay? It sucks. It's not High 1-A+ at all, it just sucks. There's barely any modal realist position that's High 1-A+, it sucks. It will never substitute for rigid accounts for ontology whatsoever.
To be based on logical modality has no meaning whatsoever to power scaling, unless the ontology with which those logical possibilities are instantiated allows for all logical possibilities to be instantiated. Talking all day about logical possibilities will never get you scaling anywhere, because what matters is not the basis modality of the possible worlds it is the basis ontology to which those possible worlds can instantiate the expressive power of the basis modality.
Heck, the Many Worlds Interpretation also has a primary basis in quantum modality but a secondary basis in alethic (logical modality), yet you don't see anybody saying MWI is High 1-A+. Why? Because talking about basis modality tells us absolutely nothing about scaling whatsoever. MWI has that, but every part of it is confined by topological and geometric constraints, it can't even be 1-A because of that.
Star Maker doesn't need to be argued for using modal maximality because its very ontology necessitates that it be High 1-A+ as I explained above. Now that's different from you, because you're using a theory with a lot of philosophical baggage as a basis for High 1-A+ disproportionate to the clarity this verse provides regarding the basis ontology for those worlds.
Like brother they call possible worlds worlds parallel worlds in this novel, you can tell Mizuki isn't thinking about some modal maximality, modality formally. Neither is he thinking about the differences in metaphysical nor logical modality. He's just using the idea bare, this is exactly why you yourself overtly rely on external philosophical notions that have yet to be even have a scent of being mentioned anywhere there.
Yeah? Most people who engage in power scaling also tend to not care overtly about themes, symbolism, imagery and all of the good stuff. Have you seen how threads discussions between two power scalers are? Of course they're gonna want to "upscale" it, if the way in which they interact with the given work of literature is predominantly anchored in power scaling.
You can always just be better, what other people do, shouldn't have any bearing on the choices you make. I don't even like arguing in threads for reasons like this, and strictly speaking don't even like power scaling anyways. I'm only doing it for the most part in support of Nasuverse fans after they've suffered much under facetious Wankbreaker's reign, if we all just collectively agreed to delete that verse I wouldn't mind.
I mean... I wasn't exactly thinking about that, but at the very least I do agree the You/First person stuff is definitely interesting.
ExcelsisBerny
She/Her- 1,668
- 2,969
Okay, so my translations are correct (what a surprise!), now there is no possible excuse, because an official translator from the wiki agreed with them.
You should read it before giving your opinion, because these are things already discussed.
That's not what "parallel worlds" means. "Parallel" is universally about "arrangement".
You should read it before giving your opinion, because these are things already discussed.
That's not what "parallel worlds" means. "Parallel" is universally about "arrangement".
- 458
- 1,369
I think you are mixing up the meanings of each kanji.
The kanji is used in the text as 並行世界 and not 並列世界.
So you are mistaken.
ExcelsisBerny
She/Her- 1,668
- 2,969
I am NOT mistaken, and I did not mix up any kanji. Both terms have the exact same practical meaning.
The nuance of 並行 is “moving in parallel,” or “existing side by side without crossing,” while the nuance of 並列 is “being aligned,” “arranged in parallel,” or “juxtaposed.”
Both terms are related to the "arrangement" of those worlds.
- 1,223
- 570
I agree with you. After reading what you said, I agree with the +H1-A classification.
- 57
- 92
- Thread starter
- #91
No my argument itself is rather that when Akuto released all possibilities, Afterlife doesn't exist as it was erased. I have presented the reasoning in other replies to Berny. It dealt with Berny's assertion that Akuto "reconfigures" the Afterlife when he "erases and resets" it. I argued that this reconfiguration is something that always happened in the Afterlife but the erasure and reset is something that happens for the first time, thus he truly erased the Afterlife and as was the case he released all possibilities simultaneously which leads to Chaos.
Ignore the argument I made above for the time being, I have questions regarding the translations. The quote about Afterlife and the possibilities as you translated refers to language and sentences.
Now Akuto uses this principle to actualise all possibilities at the same time as I am arguing according to the text you also have translated.
Berny's argument is that the "character" here refers to characters in stories, and thus finite space and finite beings combined means there are not infinite possibilities. I argued that the "character" here refers letters in natural language.
So, with and without the context what is being referred here?
"Self consistent" should refer to The Law of Identity, an individual character or the immutable law.
Anyways, within the narrative itself, this quote in the next chapter was followed by Akuto/Hiroshi(Akuto was viewing the world from Hiroshi's eyes) creating an enclosure around the world and it's inhabitants, themselves and The Law of Identity.
As I initially questioned but slightly different now, with or without that context, is the "higher beings" or "higher being" interchangeable or what is more justified here.
Last edited:
ExcelsisBerny
She/Her- 1,668
- 2,969
Yeah. It is contextually referring to the characters or personalities within the story.
Or, well, narratively the “ghosts” inside the God Universe, which it uses to create stories.
- 458
- 1,369
You are the closest to being correct in meaning.
I will reply to the rest shortly or tomorrow.
I am doing something right now.
- 1,223
- 570
The text here explains that everything that can be expressed through language and sentences can occur. From this, we can infer that it is referring to the letters themselves, and this becomes logically consistent when interpreted as linguistic characters, since the intended “infinite combinations” refer to the idea that a finite set of letters can produce infinite constructions.
For example, we have 26 letters in English, yet from these letters we can express an infinite number of things. This is exactly what is meant here. The text is clearly referring to linguistic characters in a logical way, especially since the word “possibilities” that follows further clarifies this and shows its relation to what was previously mentioned about possibilities being tied to language and sentences.
The interpretation of “characters” as story characters in this context is not logical at all, and the meaning would not be correct.
ExcelsisBerny
She/Her- 1,668
- 2,969
Can you PLEASE stop larping???
The scene that talks about the characters comes after this one, and Yoshie uses the concept of “possible worlds” only to give a general idea of what Akuto has to do, meaning creating alternative possibilities of the world.
Yoshie does not know the powers of the God Universes. The way Akuto creates possible worlds is through combinations between the scenario and the characters.
What sense would it make to say that the “space is limited” when you are supposedly creating that same space through the creation of possibilities??
Keep being a nuisance and I’m deadass going to report you.
ExcelsisBerny
She/Her- 1,668
- 2,969
He is not. You cannot know the context because you have not read the novel.
- 458
- 1,369
You are right that I haven’t read the novel, but I still think his interpretation is more logical. However, if there is additional context, I don’t mind taking a look at it.
ExcelsisBerny
She/Her- 1,668
- 2,969
You should take a look at the discussion we had, because taking into account the message you sent earlier, you had no idea what Blaze was arguing. So it is OBVIOUS that you have not read the discussion, which means you cannot say “X is more logical” if you do not even have a contextual basis.
My opponent’s response does not address my points, so I am fine with ending the discussion here, because otherwise this is going to drag on for 20 pages.
These are my 2 responses:
Demon King Daimao High 1A+ CRT
At first, I was not planning to get involved with this thread, but I changed my mind after reading it and seeing that a ton of things are being taken out of context. Now I am motivated. Let’s dance, Blaze. 👩🦯👩🦯👩🦯 The thread, as I said before, has a ton of unnecessary information, so I am...vsbattles.com
Demon King Daimao High 1A+ CRT
At first, I was not planning to get involved with this thread, but I changed my mind after reading it and seeing that a ton of things are being taken out of context. Now I am motivated. Let’s dance, Blaze. 👩🦯👩🦯👩🦯 The thread, as I said before, has a ton of unnecessary information, so I am...
These are debunks of Shin to the more philosophical part of the OP arguments:
Demon King Daimao High 1A+ CRT
[/SPOILER] Referring to the CRT that downgraded the High 1A+ rating. [/SPOILER] One question that would arise is, what warrants this massive assumption rather than a much simpler one? The immediate reason is TLOI. One massive issue that any interpretation fails to address is why...
Demon King Daimao High 1A+ CRT
At first, I was not planning to get involved with this thread, but I changed my mind after reading it and seeing that a ton of things are being taken out of context. Now I am motivated. Let’s dance, Blaze. 👩🦯👩🦯👩🦯 The thread, as I said before, has a ton of unnecessary information, so I am...
Demon King Daimao High 1A+ CRT
At first, I was not planning to get involved with this thread, but I changed my mind after reading it and seeing that a ton of things are being taken out of context. Now I am motivated. Let’s dance, Blaze. 👩🦯👩🦯👩🦯 The thread, as I said before, has a ton of unnecessary information, so I am...
Demon King Daimao High 1A+ CRT
At first, I was not planning to get involved with this thread, but I changed my mind after reading it and seeing that a ton of things are being taken out of context. Now I am motivated. Let’s dance, Blaze. 👩🦯👩🦯👩🦯 The thread, as I said before, has a ton of unnecessary information, so I am...
The High 1-A+ scaling is completely unsupported, whether from the perspective of the Tiering System or from the narrative of the work itself.
If Shin wants to add anything else, he can do so.
If your entire argument is based on “well, they talked about combinations of propositions here, so ‘characters’ there must necessarily refer to ‘letters,’” then you are completely wrong, because those are two completely different scenes.
- 458
- 1,369
I said from the beginning that I didn’t read everything.
As I said, if you have the full context, can you send it?
raw
ExcelsisBerny
She/Her- 1,668
- 2,969
- 57
- 92
- Thread starter
- #101
What are YOU talking about? Yoshie was specifically talking about the nature of Afterlife, not the power of the God Universes. Heck this quote is even clearly says "ending the world".
The nature of Afterlife was already indicated by Boichiro, a world where all matters exists simultaneously and thus can be rearranged.(And is being rearranged all the time, so is the difference between rearranging/reconfiguring and erasing/resetting) Yoshie in this part just justifies it with proper conception of possible world, that given enough time anything that is possible would occur.
Additionally, Yoshie directly orders Akuto to create all those possibilities, just after explaining the concept of possible worlds.
It's to me very much incoherent to say that Akuto is using beings of the stories to create combinations when the very conception of what he has to do revolves around language and sentences.
ExcelsisBerny
She/Her- 1,668
- 2,969
That sentence is previous to the explanation of the "possible worlds".
Bouichirou is not in the same scene as Yoshie, so she cannot be “justifying” anything on that matter.
The reason Yoshie mentions possible worlds is to give Akuto the idea of what he has to do.
Your own quotes literally say that Akuto is rearranging the Afterlife, the scenario. You are genuinely not following at all.
Anyway, since you keep insisting on this point, I am going to post every single time the novel uses the term キャラクター so we can end this discussion.
- 57
- 92
- Thread starter
- #103
The last edited section of talks about the three Possibilities on what it could refer to— space from which the data is taken(Afterlife), space in which the possibilities are actualised (Afterlife as per your claims), or inside Akuto's mind as per the Solipsism.
It could not be that all the possibilities were actualised into Afterlife(or nah other finite space) when it's very clear it has been ended. Even if we ignore this and still say that the possibilities releases were finite, the possibilities released would still be a very large finite number. It's not possible that Afterlife which is the size of planet and finite can house possibility of his World that was the size of Solar System AND also has VPS which is infinite in size.
Thus it is simply talking about the finite space from which data was taken and I have already stated many times that such limitation were completely removed.
ExcelsisBerny
She/Her- 1,668
- 2,969
Yeah, your tracking skills are atrocious.
What I am asking is: what sense does it make to emphasize that the “space is finite” and then say that the combinations between that space and the “letters" (according to you) create variables?
The combinations to create worlds are supposed to be between the data itself (again, according to your interpretation). So in that case, talking about “space” is useless, since the space itself is defined by the combinations of that same data.
Unless you think the letters LITERALLY take up space.
- 458
- 1,369
You will continue replying to each other, and the topic may reach around 10 pages, and this will make evaluating this topic difficult for staff.
If you both think that there is nothing left to say, and you have presented all your arguments, I suggest that you write a comment that contains and explains all your arguments in full, and then wait for staff.
If you both think that there is nothing left to say, and you have presented all your arguments, I suggest that you write a comment that contains and explains all your arguments in full, and then wait for staff.
- 57
- 92
- Thread starter
- #106
I am referring to there being an even more explicit statement saying Akuto is going to end the world. You are interpreting what I said differently.
She was justifying the nature of the world using the concept of Possible world. That is, in a world that is reconfigured at all times given enough time everything possible would occur.
Yeah, and he doesn't exactly that. Actualise all possibilities. But since she explicitly explains that using "language", "sentences" and gramtical correctness, Akuto releases possibilities using same understanding.
Now if you are gonna say it's about the data of his world and not natural language, then I would correct you. It was a copy of data of his world meant for Akuto to look back to into when he would be testing the stories. To simplify, it was solely as a backup.
Huh? Did you forget that the world was almost ended by Akuto but was stopped? This was an indication for Boichiro to leave the Afterlife as Akuto was about to erase it.
The next quote mentions that the Afterlife is being changed all the time but it was erased so that Akuto restarts the world.
Why would they be running out of Afterlife if the it was only being reconfigured like always?
I would still be justified in saying that the intention of the writer was what I am talking about. The use of beings to make combinations is incoherent. Additionally, what you are asserting wasn't suggested by the novel anywhere, while what I am asserting is the very cause of that scenario.
ExcelsisBerny
She/Her- 1,668
- 2,969
Yeah. I'm gonna send my final message showing all the instances the novel uses キャラクター to make my point clear and debunk the whole "characters = letters" nonsense.
- 1,590
- 896
Have you any reason for this. If you explain your reasons i would be glad.
- 57
- 92
- Thread starter
- #111
Oh my bad.
The combinations as per my arguments are over the letters, not letters combining with space. It's unclear in what even is meant by finite space.
But I would entertain your question as it might answer what the use of space is.
Ignoring whatever could be meant by Characters, if we take the important concepts— space, combination and possibilities it is very clear it is referring to the "ripple in a lake" analogy of the time to express Possibilities as was explained by Boichiro. In this model of the world the other points in space are possibilities that didn't happen. By time travelling one could use those possibilities by reconfiguring matter
The very immediate understanding that would be made is that finite space would have to refer to something similar to Afterlife, but as has already been demonstrated 1- it was erased. 2- Afterlife is objectively smaller than the real world so it cannot be the space where the possibilities were actualised of anything in that sense happened.
The another and major thing to understand is it refers to "matter" not just "characters" that are involved in this "combination in space". It's also a fact that the possibilities involved non-living things that are not characters or ghosts/souls. The use of "characters" to refer to being and their combination is very much inconsistent.
Additionally, the very reason why Afterlife allows such reconfiguration is because it's a world made of information, thus everything is and also underlined by words.
Thus the inference that the "characters" refers to letters is very much justified by this very understanding.
The sole reason why I was not talking about this is because it still doesn't explain what the "finite space" means. The only thing that it could mean by this understanding is Akuto's body.
And then everything goes back full circle tp what I was already arguing about.
Now, I explained my stance, could you explain the many questions I put forth? Or can you justify using quotes from novel how characters combine with space or anything in that regards?
Huh? You do realise that my argument is over the use of キャラクター being meant for letters and not beings, not that the word isn't used for characters in a story? Bringing them up doesn't really deal with the very argument. Heck if you want I can bring those quotes that uses キャラクター to refer to characters in a story.
I think this would all suffice to support my arguments.
ExcelsisBerny
She/Her- 1,668
- 2,969
Since there are still doubts about the meaning of キャラクター, I decided to write this message, which will be long and comprehensive, explaining everything necessary to reach a conclusion. I hope this is the last time, because it genuinely took me a lot of time to make.
The table of contents for this message is:
Jishoo
In Jisho, the page gives you the Wikipedia definition associated with the term, which is “character” in the artistic sense, meaning, and I quote: “the representation of a person in a narrative work of art.” It also mentions that the term refers to “personality” or “disposition,” which, thanks to the context of the Wikipedia definition, we know is within the context or nuance of being an “acting element” within a narrative.
Wikitionary
In Wiktionary, it is openly stated that the term means, and I quote, “a fictitious person or creature,” with one of its synonyms being 登場人物, which means, and I quote, “appearing as a person,” as in “appearing in this story.” So the connotation tied to being an element within a narrative is supported by this dictionary as well.
So, having read these two entries, we can conclude that the term can mean:
Quoting the OP’s responses (1st message):
Quoting the OP’s responses (2nd message):
In short, Blaze appeals to the fact that the term キャラクター has “another definition,” which is, and I quote directly from Tanoshii Japanese: “letter; character; symbol.” Something that also appears in the Jishoo dictionary.
At first glance, this might seem to make sense. However, there is an important context that Blaze completely ignores, and that I have in fact already addressed in my second response.
Quoting myself:
Relevant quote:
This is something Blaze has not responded to. In fact, he has completely ignored it, I wonder why...
In the same Jisho dictionary, the spelling is explicitly shown as, and I quote, “usu. キャラクタ,” which means that when this katakana term is used in the context of “computing,” that form of the term is used.
It is basically a derived or technical form of the term, especially common in technical Japanese, such as in technical manuals, game engine notes, UI descriptions, programming comments, database explanations, and that kind of stuff.
With these two definitions given in Japanese dictionaries, I believe there should no longer be any doubt about when one form is used and when the other is used.
To make this even clearer, I am going to give a couple of examples so the difference between the use of キャラクタ and キャラクター can be seen directly:
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
Example 4
Hopefully, all of this is enough to demonstrate that the fact that the novel uses キャラクター in that part makes the scale lean considerably toward my interpretation. Of course, as in any language, there can be unorthodox ways of using a term, aka colloquialisms, but hopefully we can all agree that those are rare cases in literature compared to the normal way words are used.
Either way, in the next section, I am going to demonstrate how the work itself is CRYSTAL clear on this.
In Chapter 3, every time キャラクター is used, it refers to the same thing, namely calling the people of the Afterlife “fictional characters.” The second quote explicitly says that Akuto, when creating the worlds, AKA “redoing the story,” uses the fictional characters from the Afterlife.
Those fictional characters are the “personalities.”
In Chapter 4, the same thing happens as in Chapter 3, with the only quote being the exact important quote I have been analyzing in my previous messages. Taking into account the use of the term in Chapter 3, it is super evident how the term is being used here.
Akuto uses the fictional characters, the people of the Afterlife, the personalities, and combines them with the space, giving rise to different combinations, which is exactly what we see in the possibilities the guy creates, all of which use the SAME characters in different contexts. What a coincidence! (sarcasm)
In Chapter 5, the term is used many times, but in every case it carries the same usual connotation: fictional characters.
Fictional characters exist because the Law of Identity allows them to obtain a “self-identity.” And those fictional characters are the ghosts or personalities that exist inside the Outer Gods.
This explains why Akuto only sees “hundreds of millions” of ghosts inside the Outer Gods and not infinite ones, because the narrator said: the fictional characters are finite in number
Finishing with Chapter 6...
This final sentence fully confirms everything said so far, since the context of that scene is all the ghosts inside Akuto’s body transferring into Keena’s body to complete the ritual and create the empty body.
At no point is キャラクタ used in the entirety of ACT 13.
Quoting myself:
The table of contents for this message is:
- Meaning of the term
- Blaze’s argument
- All instances of キャラクター in ACT 13
- Logical conclusion
Meaning of the term
To give a direct and general definition: キャラクター is the standard, natural Japanese katakana form of the English term “character.” To get a broader picture of the meaning of “character” in this context, let’s look at its definition across 2 different online dictionaries.Jishoo
In Jisho, the page gives you the Wikipedia definition associated with the term, which is “character” in the artistic sense, meaning, and I quote: “the representation of a person in a narrative work of art.” It also mentions that the term refers to “personality” or “disposition,” which, thanks to the context of the Wikipedia definition, we know is within the context or nuance of being an “acting element” within a narrative.
Wikitionary
In Wiktionary, it is openly stated that the term means, and I quote, “a fictitious person or creature,” with one of its synonyms being 登場人物, which means, and I quote, “appearing as a person,” as in “appearing in this story.” So the connotation tied to being an element within a narrative is supported by this dictionary as well.
So, having read these two entries, we can conclude that the term can mean:
- A fictional character.
- A person, persona, or role in a story.
- Someone’s personality or distinctive traits.
- Sometimes, more abstractly, a role, identity, or narrative function.
Blaze’s argument
After I explained the definition of the term in my first message, Blaze responded with an argument that he has held onto firmly up to the moment I am writing this text.Quoting the OP’s responses (1st message):
Quoting the OP’s responses (2nd message):
In short, Blaze appeals to the fact that the term キャラクター has “another definition,” which is, and I quote directly from Tanoshii Japanese: “letter; character; symbol.” Something that also appears in the Jishoo dictionary.
At first glance, this might seem to make sense. However, there is an important context that Blaze completely ignores, and that I have in fact already addressed in my second response.
Quoting myself:
Relevant quote:
This is something Blaze has not responded to. In fact, he has completely ignored it, I wonder why...
In the same Jisho dictionary, the spelling is explicitly shown as, and I quote, “usu. キャラクタ,” which means that when this katakana term is used in the context of “computing,” that form of the term is used.
It is basically a derived or technical form of the term, especially common in technical Japanese, such as in technical manuals, game engine notes, UI descriptions, programming comments, database explanations, and that kind of stuff.
With these two definitions given in Japanese dictionaries, I believe there should no longer be any doubt about when one form is used and when the other is used.
| Japanese | Meaning | Context |
|---|---|---|
| 文字 | Written character; Letter; Symbol | Ordinary and Technical Japanese |
| キャラクタ | Character as data; Encoded character | Computing, Programming |
| キャラクター | Fictional character, Personality | Ordinary Language, Fiction, Media |
To make this even clearer, I am going to give a couple of examples so the difference between the use of キャラクタ and キャラクター can be seen directly:
Example 1
Here, キャラクター clearly refers to a fictional entity.
Example 2
This is a narrative analysis.
Example 3
Here, キャラクタ means text characters.
Example 4
The character is being treated as data or an object.
Hopefully, all of this is enough to demonstrate that the fact that the novel uses キャラクター in that part makes the scale lean considerably toward my interpretation. Of course, as in any language, there can be unorthodox ways of using a term, aka colloquialisms, but hopefully we can all agree that those are rare cases in literature compared to the normal way words are used.
Either way, in the next section, I am going to demonstrate how the work itself is CRYSTAL clear on this.
All instances of キャラクター in ACT 13
The novel uses the term キャラクター a total of 11 times in ACT 13.In Chapter 3, every time キャラクター is used, it refers to the same thing, namely calling the people of the Afterlife “fictional characters.” The second quote explicitly says that Akuto, when creating the worlds, AKA “redoing the story,” uses the fictional characters from the Afterlife.
Those fictional characters are the “personalities.”
In Chapter 4, the same thing happens as in Chapter 3, with the only quote being the exact important quote I have been analyzing in my previous messages. Taking into account the use of the term in Chapter 3, it is super evident how the term is being used here.
Akuto uses the fictional characters, the people of the Afterlife, the personalities, and combines them with the space, giving rise to different combinations, which is exactly what we see in the possibilities the guy creates, all of which use the SAME characters in different contexts. What a coincidence! (sarcasm)
In Chapter 5, the term is used many times, but in every case it carries the same usual connotation: fictional characters.
Fictional characters exist because the Law of Identity allows them to obtain a “self-identity.” And those fictional characters are the ghosts or personalities that exist inside the Outer Gods.
This explains why Akuto only sees “hundreds of millions” of ghosts inside the Outer Gods and not infinite ones, because the narrator said: the fictional characters are finite in number
Finishing with Chapter 6...
This final sentence fully confirms everything said so far, since the context of that scene is all the ghosts inside Akuto’s body transferring into Keena’s body to complete the ritual and create the empty body.
At no point is キャラクタ used in the entirety of ACT 13.
Logical conclusion
Based on everything seen so far, it should already be crystal clear that Blaze is simply objectively wrong, and that my initial argument against High 1-A+ is completely valid.Quoting myself:
- 5,578
- 6,853
Yea, agree with Berny FRA. Hella aura as always girl
ShinMaximillion
Username Only- 605
- 1,743
Maybe blaze should've been nicer, now he's got her all locked in. I suppose my argument doesn't matter now.
I assumed your arguments to give you the benefit of the doubt to show you this still doesn't work even if what you're saying is true. But now there is no benefit of the doubt to give.
- 1,223
- 570
I don’t understand why the staff and the opposing side refuse to at least acknowledge that the Anti-Universe should be at the highest levels of H1A.
I don’t understand—the text clearly says that it transcends the concept of reality and causality and everything beyond that, and that everything ends there. Things like reality and fiction themselves cease to exist. This concept itself—even reality as a whole—has already ended. It’s emptiness within emptiness within emptiness, beyond words…
Even if +H1A isn’t agreed upon, at the very least the Anti-Universe should be placed at the absolute highest possible degree of H1A, such that there is no qualitative superiority above it, since it already transcends those things.
In any case, even if this gets rejected, I’ll soon open a thread to upgrade the Anti-Universe to the highest possible layer of H1A, because this situation has become genuinely problematic.
The context surrounding the Anti-Universe arguably places it at Tier 0, not just the highest layers of H1A—but let’s set that aside for now. What I absolutely cannot accept is treating the Anti-Universe as baseline H1A. That’s honestly laughable and contradicts the very premise of the Anti-Universe. It’s as if VSBW is suggesting that there could be some kind of qualitative superiority above it, which makes no sense and contradicts everything in the novel itself. I’ll address this contradiction in another thread if it isn’t resolved now.
I don’t understand—the text clearly says that it transcends the concept of reality and causality and everything beyond that, and that everything ends there. Things like reality and fiction themselves cease to exist. This concept itself—even reality as a whole—has already ended. It’s emptiness within emptiness within emptiness, beyond words…
Even if +H1A isn’t agreed upon, at the very least the Anti-Universe should be placed at the absolute highest possible degree of H1A, such that there is no qualitative superiority above it, since it already transcends those things.
In any case, even if this gets rejected, I’ll soon open a thread to upgrade the Anti-Universe to the highest possible layer of H1A, because this situation has become genuinely problematic.
The context surrounding the Anti-Universe arguably places it at Tier 0, not just the highest layers of H1A—but let’s set that aside for now. What I absolutely cannot accept is treating the Anti-Universe as baseline H1A. That’s honestly laughable and contradicts the very premise of the Anti-Universe. It’s as if VSBW is suggesting that there could be some kind of qualitative superiority above it, which makes no sense and contradicts everything in the novel itself. I’ll address this contradiction in another thread if it isn’t resolved now.
ExcelsisBerny
She/Her- 1,668
- 2,969
This is completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread. I am going to ask you one last time before seriously reporting you: stop bringing up irrelevant stuff.
Make 30 threads if you want. If you have nothing of value to contribute regarding the discussion about possible worlds in THIS thread, then STOP adding useless messages.
- 899
- 360
I'll just be eating popcorn when that happens XD
- 1,223
- 570
I don’t understand what exactly your problem with me is. Every minute you threaten to report me just because I shared my opinion in the thread? Are you going to report me and tell them “he gave his opinion in the thread” or what?
All I said is that if +H1A isn’t accepted, then at least—based on the arguments presented—the Anti-Universe could be placed at the highest level of H1A. This is just an opinion and not a derailment of the topic.
Also, stop constantly threatening to report me every second as if I did something to you in the first place.
ExcelsisBerny
She/Her- 1,668
- 2,969
- 458
- 1,369
After reading the entire thread and majority of the OP, I would say the majority of the lengthy text is unrelated to High 1-A+. Some were termed as High 1-A+ in appearance but they don't seem like High 1-A+ to me in any sense.
I will try to summarize my stance regarding what is actually relevant to the High 1-A+ things. In some cases I agree with one side and not the other, and in some cases I may disagree with both:
No, because that leads to a logical contradiction. If there is a set of all possible worlds, there cannot be a possible world that contains all possible worlds, as it means said possible world will have to contain itself and more. It's like trying to fit more than 5cm² in an area that is also 5cm². It's an impossible thing. Alternatively, it's trying to say that 5 = 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1
Akuto seems to be capable of realizing/release all possibilities, but he does this through the Afterlife (although yes while using external tools), but that would be incoherent with the facts of how Logical possibilities are realized.
This makes me doubt if the scope of "Logic" defined in DKD is really High 1-A+ or not
You could maybe do something by redefining logic itself universally, but that is something only a tier 0 should be able to do, which Akuto is not, in any way.
So I disagree with the OP's reasoning. However, I'm neutral on the idea of High 1-A+ for DKD and will wait for further input.
Also, I may be wrong in some things I said, as I do not read philosophy greatly. I'm arguing purely based on what is written in our pages on vsbw and my knowledge based on them, and my own logical reasoning.
I will try to summarize my stance regarding what is actually relevant to the High 1-A+ things. In some cases I agree with one side and not the other, and in some cases I may disagree with both:
- Characters:
- Afterlife:
- It gives me the idea of something like "the plot of land was emptied and the houses were destroyed, then reconstructed". If the Afterlife was the base (land) and everything in it was houses, this gives me the idea that the Afterlife was rearranged so greatly that it could be described as "adding another story to a house" anymore but destroying and reconstructing everything in it.
- The arguments proposed by the OP in themselves are insufficient for High 1-A+.
- The Afterlife can "transform into any possible world that can be demoted by Logic or Language".
- However, there are some problems with how Akuto can release "all possibilities".
No, because that leads to a logical contradiction. If there is a set of all possible worlds, there cannot be a possible world that contains all possible worlds, as it means said possible world will have to contain itself and more. It's like trying to fit more than 5cm² in an area that is also 5cm². It's an impossible thing. Alternatively, it's trying to say that 5 = 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1
Akuto seems to be capable of realizing/release all possibilities, but he does this through the Afterlife (although yes while using external tools), but that would be incoherent with the facts of how Logical possibilities are realized.
This makes me doubt if the scope of "Logic" defined in DKD is really High 1-A+ or not
You could maybe do something by redefining logic itself universally, but that is something only a tier 0 should be able to do, which Akuto is not, in any way.
So I disagree with the OP's reasoning. However, I'm neutral on the idea of High 1-A+ for DKD and will wait for further input.
Also, I may be wrong in some things I said, as I do not read philosophy greatly. I'm arguing purely based on what is written in our pages on vsbw and my knowledge based on them, and my own logical reasoning.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
