[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Oliver

It is impossible to state with certainty that laws of physics and nature are known in their complete form. Therefore witches don't exist whichever definition of existence I offer.

The generic definition of "existence" would be something like "objects, true knowledge of which is possible, exist."
You can, of course, go narrower than that, and restrict the definition of "existence" to "objects which have a material substance exist".

Unfortunately that would not only exclude numbers as such, which would only screw mathematics, but would also screw things that are unambiguously real (like money) but have no material substance to them, essentially ending up in a world where nothing of actual interest "exists" and making the word useless.

You would be in essence falsely replacing the idea of "existence" with the idea of "matter". Mind you, what "matter" is, isn't an easy question either, and with the way modern physics works, it might end up not existing too.

I can't accept as valid your first definition. What "true knowledge" means?
If it means a 100% knowledge of a particular subject then almost nothing exist.
If it means you can know its general definition then almost everything exist.
If then you mean something that can be inquired through empirical means then it just becomes like your second definition.


As for money. It exists just as a concept. Only banknotes and coins truly exist.

Originally Posted by TehChron

42.

Numbers exist as units of measurement of real world phenomena. And as such, can take on several different forms to measure the same thing. They are themselves a means to grasp the form of reality, and enable us to keep track of quantities by differentiating unequal quantities from one another.

Or something.

Your definition is invalid. You have left out irrational and unreal numbers, which are however still numbers. The definition of "number" should comprise anything that is classified as "number".

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

As for money. It exists just as a concept. Only banknotes and coins truly exist.

No, pieces of paper and shaped metal exist. Some pieces of paper and shaped bits of metal are money, and others are not.

Is there an existence-state change there?

And why is there a bias against non-emodied concepts vs. physical existences? Many concepts are much more important than physical objects.

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Your definition is invalid. You have left out irrational and unreal numbers, which are however still numbers. The definition of "number" should comprise anything that is classified as "number".

Not at all, imaginary and irrational numbers are also used as units of measurement of imaginary concepts, theoretical quantities, and otherwise normally unverifiable objects.


A number is a unit of measurement of a quantity.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Renall

No, pieces of paper and shaped metal exist. Some pieces of paper and shaped bits of metal are money, and others are not.

Well I could say that the definition of "coin" is a small piece of metal usually round, minted in a particular fashion, which is given a particular (abstract) value by a given society in order to be utilized in economic trades.

According to this definition a coin exist, even if the value of the coin itself doesn't.

Originally Posted by Renall

And why is there a bias against non-emodied concepts vs. physical existences? Many concepts are much more important than physical objects.

I never did such a things. For humans concepts are probably more important than physical objects.

Originally Posted by TehChron

Not at all, imaginary and irrational numbers are also used as units of measurement of imaginary concepts, theoretical quantities, and otherwise normally unverifiable objects.


A number is a unit of measurement of a quantity.

This definition is better, but if you look at what you wrote before you said that they are used to measure real world phenomena, which is definitely not true for any number.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

I can't accept as valid your first definition. What "true knowledge" means?

I shall refer you to the Wikipedia article on gnoseology instead of writing up an inadequate representation within the confines of a forum posting. :P

You're free to use the "material substance" definition, but eventually, once you get to vacuum energy trying to define what matter is, you will find that nothing exhibits properties of matter too, so yeah.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

As for money. It exists just as a concept. Only banknotes and coins truly exist.

Will you care about rejecting it too, then? And it relies on numbers, don't forget.

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

This definition is better, but if you look at what you wrote before you said that they are used to measure real world phenomena, which is definitely not true for any number.

So a human thought is not a real world phenomena? Or, more specifically, a human theory?

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Oliver

I shall refer you to the Wikipedia article on gnoseology instead of writing up an inadequate representation within the confines of a forum posting. :P

You're free to use the "material substance" definition, but eventually, once you get to vacuum energy trying to define what matter is, you will find that nothing exhibits properties of matter too, so yeah.

there are many different currents of gnoseology, it is a very broad concept. Empiricism is a gnoseology too you know.

Os for the problem you expose, it is easily solvable. I actually never used the term "matter" because the idea that "matter" is what the real world is made of is a pretentious concept.

Rather than that, "anything that has any influence in the physical world and can be empirically observed or inferred exist".
The existence is not limited to that as it is possible that there are existences we cannot observe, but anything that falls under that definition definitely exist, and anything that doesn't, doesn't exist. I know that "numbers" do not fall under it.

Originally Posted by Oliver

Will you care about rejecting it too, then? And it relies on numbers, don't forget.

I did rejected it I think.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by TehChron

So a human thought is not a real world phenomena? Or, more specifically, a human theory?

The thought itself it is, its content is not.
That was quite a tricky question, I guess most people would have fall for it.

Oh and a human theory is a concept by definition.

[Judoh]

Isn't a witch a concept though? Especially to a 9 year old girl's imagination?

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

The thought itself it is, its content is not.
That was quite a tricky question, I guess most people would have fall for it.

Oh and a human theory is a concept by definition.

To have escaped a trap I set in response to a trap of your own is mighty skillful on your part.

My compliments.

Anyway, concepts themselves are real world phenomena, as they are created as a result of actions in the real world, even if the concept itself is simply imaginary, or if it's later proven to be applicable to reality.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Rather than that, "anything that has any influence in the physical world and can be empirically observed or inferred exist".
The existence is not limited to that as it is possible that there are existences we cannot observe, but anything that falls under that definition definitely exist, and anything that doesn't, doesn't exist. I know that "numbers" do not fall under it.

Uhhmmm... Pi is a number. According to this definition it exists, as changing it would produce a world profoundly different from the one observed. Certain theories in physics propose that constants analogous to Pi and purely mathematical in nature otherwise are not uniform throughout the universe, so yes, it can happen.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Judoh

Isn't a witch a concept though? Especially to a 9 year old girl's imagination?

It definitely is, and not just for a 9 year old girl. If I talk about witches and magic everyone can understand what I'm talking about (provided they know english).

Originally Posted by TehChron

Anyway, concepts themselves are real world phenomena, as they are created as a result of actions in the real world, even if the concept itself is simply imaginary, or if it's later proven to be applicable to reality.

Hmmmm... this is a very tricky statement. It can't really be said that concepts are "created", the term is improper. "formulated" is the right word.

You need to understand that a concept can vanish in thin air if the one that formulated it just forgets it before ever telling it to anyone.

The thinking process is definitely something that occur in the real world and in theory can be observed, however the result of those processes aren't necessarily real.

Originally Posted by Oliver

Uhhmmm... Pi is a number. According to this definition it exists, as changing it would produce a world profoundly different from the one observed. Certain theories in physics propose that constants analogous to Pi and purely mathematical in nature otherwise are not uniform throughout the universe, so yes, it can happen.

Uh? I don't really understand what you mean. The Pi is a concept, if you change it, that is if you change a concept, you don't really change the reality it tries to explain.

This isn't much different than saying "I can observe that there is just one coin in my pocket, therefore "1" exist", this isn't a valid reasoning to me.

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Hmmmm... this is a very tricky statement. It can't really be said that concepts are "created", the term is improper. "formulated" is the right word.

You need to understand that a concept can vanish in thin air if the one that formulated it just forgets it before ever telling it to anyone.

Prove that a certain deceased individual was ever alive, definitively.

Let me make it more specific:

Prove that a certain anonymous and deceased individual was ever alive to begin with.

The thinking process is definitely something that occur in the real world and in theory can be observed, however the result of those processes aren't necessarily real.

Only as real as the human consciousness itself.

[Steampunk Librarian]

Physics exist. We know because its observable. Gravity is a good example.

We understand how physics work, because of math. Without math, we would not understand physics other than on an extremely basic level. This means math exists, as its a way to observe physics, which certainly exists.

Math is nothing without numbers.

Therefore, numbers exist.

???

edit; btw, to say math exists, I mean more like knowledge exists. To deny knowledge, is basically derpydoop o_o;;

I hate post-modern thought.

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by Steampunk Librarian

Physics exist. We know because its observable. Gravity is a good example.

We understand how physics work, because of math. Without math, we would not understand physics other than on an extremely basic level. This means math exists, as its a way to observe physics, which certainly exists.

Math is nothing without numbers.

Therefore, numbers exist.

???

Profit.

Thats honestly circular logic, though, I think.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by TehChron

Prove that a certain anonymous and deceased individual was ever alive to begin with.

You really make very tricky questions. The problem with this is that you are asking to do it myself.

Now there would be a lot of things I wouldn't be able to do it myself. For example prove that atoms exist. I probably will never have the necessary equipment to do it in my whole life.

So how can we solve this dilemma? Well it's simple. As long as there is a single person that can empirically prove that something exist, then you can logically assume that it exist.

Of course if you begin to distrust everyone and everything there would probably no way to prove you anything.
However I can logically assume that for any given person there existed other persons that were able to empirically prove that such a person existed.

It doesn't matter if I cannot reach them in space or time. The logical assumption itself is good enough for me.

Originally Posted by TehChron

Only as real as the human consciousness itself.

I'm gonna have to stop here, because the matter of "human consciousness" would probably spawn a discussion that isn't meant for this forum and we are already off topic.

We understand how physics work, because of math. Without math, we would not understand physics other than on an extremely basic level. This means math exists, as its a way to observe physics, which certainly exists.

I disagree with this explanation. Without the concept of "meter" I wouldn't be able to understand distances, however this doesn't mean that the concept of "meter" is absolutely necessary. I wager that some of you can understand distances through the concept of "feet" without having any idea about what a "meter" is.

We definitely need "tools" to understand the world, but that hardly proves that those tools are real.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Uh? I don't really understand what you mean. The Pi is a concept, if you change it, that is if you change a concept, you don't really change the reality it tries to explain.

Pi, being an irrational and transcendental number, can never be known in full. However, certain physical theories assert that Pi, or numbers that can be expressed through Pi, or possess similar properties, can change, and properties of nature will change accordingly if that happens.

...wait, why am I talking to you in the first place? Letters and words are concepts, since for you they don't exist, further discussion is pointless.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Pi, being an irrational and transcendental number, can never be known in full. However, certain physical theories assert that Pi, or numbers that can be expressed through Pi, or possess similar properties, can change, and properties of nature will change accordingly if that happens.

...wait, why am I talking to you in the first place? Letters and words are concepts, since for you they don't exist, further discussion is pointless.

I already stated that for humans concepts are even more important than existing entities so you shouldn't fear that I consider discussions "pointless".

As for those physical theories, I've never heard of them before, but they sound extremely ridiculous to me. I wager they were never proved to be true.
what kind of phenomena can trigger the change of the "pi" I wonder? I admit I can't even think about such a thing.


BTW Oliver, can you really say that you can know the "pi"? I Don't think it's possible, you can only know a part of the "pi" but no one can say to know the 100% of the "pi" nature.

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

You really make very tricky questions. The problem with this is that you are asking to do it myself.

Now there would be a lot of things I wouldn't be able to do it myself. For example prove that atoms exist. I probably will never have the necessary equipment to do it in my whole life.

So how can we solve this dilemma? Well it's simple. As long as there is a single person that can empirically prove that something exist, then you can logically assume that it exist.

Of course if you begin to distrust everyone and everything there would probably no way to prove you anything.
However I can logically assume that for any given person there existed other persons that were able to empirically prove that such a person existed.

And for every one person with the capacity to prove any concept X, by accepting that individuals proving of said concept, then we accept that it does exist.

Also, Ill take that bit about tricky questions as a compliment.

The basic foundation of all accepted knowledge is that we trust that the individuals before us who have claimed to have proven it have actually done so. If we distrust all prior proven information or concepts, then we would either wallow in a form of narcissist ignorance, or seek to do the impossible and re-learn the accumulation of human knowledge within the span of a single lifetime. That is inefficient, to say the least.

It doesn't matter if I cannot reach them in space or time. The logical assumption itself is good enough for me.

Then the logical assumption that basic building blocks we know as sub-atomic particles exist in the universe is also good enough for you.

As is the nature of numbers being used to classify the quantity of said particles, or other such things.

I'm gonna have to stop here, because the matter of "human consciousness" would probably spawn a discussion that isn't meant for this forum and we are already off topic.

Damn, and here I was hoping to get you caught up in more ephemeral philosophizing.

I disagree with this explanation. Without the concept of "meter" I wouldn't be able to understand distances, however this doesn't mean that the concept of "meter" is absolutely necessary. I wager that some of you can understand distances through the concept of "feet" without having any idea about what a "meter" is.

We definitely need "tools" to understand the world, but that hardly proves that those tools are real.

A tool is an invention, a subjective means of classification. It need not be real, it need only be applicable as an idea or means of measurement.

[Jan-Poo]

Well... it's not like I don't wanna answer or that I can't, but I think we should seriously stop here. I think we expressed our opinions quite eloquently. We should go back talking about umineko now.

frankly I wouldn't be surprised if all these recent posts will be removed entirely.