2010-05-02, 21:19 | Link #9721 |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
That would be more of a narrative reason for Kinzo to be dead rather than a "proof".
So your theory is that Battler physically demonstrates that Kinzo is dead, and that due to reason X Kinzo's death allows him to brought back into the family to come to the island for the family conference. Sounds like Kinzo has to be written out of the story for Battler to be introduced. The things is though that Battler has to chose to come back to family register. He can't be "brought back". So even if Kinzo is dead that doesn't force him to join the family again. We haven't been given a reason for why he rejoined the family, but his grandfather dying wouldn't be a reason for him to chose to do that so I think it's unrelated. It's an interesting narrative, but I don't think it holds water.
__________________
|
2010-05-02, 21:29 | Link #9722 | ||
Endless Witch-Doctor
Join Date: Mar 2010
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2010-05-03, 01:44 | Link #9723 |
Dea ex Kakera
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
|
Even if evidence existed that Kinzo was dead, it wouldn't rise to the level of 100% certainty necessary to construct a red truth, and of course a blue truth doesn't constitute a proof. So I think casting about for evidence is the wrong way to look at this; instead, you need to account for why Battler was able to establish Kinzo's death even though he didn't have certain evidence. Somehow, Battler was able to turn the fact that he had no evidence into a weapon.
That only works if his gold truth reversed the burden of proof, placing it on Dlanor instead of himself. In that situation, precisely because there was no evidence, Dlanor would have had no way to argue against his proposed "process" (that the unidentified corpse he presented was Kinzo's). And of course no one could do anything about the "result" (Kinzo is dead) because it was actually true. Since Battler's gold stood unchallenged by the detective side and had an objectively true result, it became a "proof". Maybe a good example would be a scientific paper with a particular experimental result. You can think of the data and arguments in the paper as a gold truth. Because of the scientist's reputation, those data and arguments form a "proof" of the result. That proof isn't objective, and only works so long as there is a lack of evidence that the scientist's process is untrustworthy. If the result turns out to be wrong later due to other evidence, that could also destroy the scientist's "proof". However, if there is no evidence against the process, and the result is objectively correct, then the process might as well be correct even if it was completely made up.
__________________
Last edited by LyricalAura; 2010-05-03 at 02:03. |
2010-05-03, 09:03 | Link #9724 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
This talk on gold truth reminded me of some notes I made on it a little while back.
I believe I remember some one saying that when they elaborate on what gold truth is in Episode 6, that the gold is a combination of red and blue. The red is truth, it doesn't need evidence or proof, we must accept it as the truth. The blue is theory, ideas based on the observations of the player/reader. Combining the two, we get a truth based off of the observations- a witness' truth. I personally think the gold is the truth of humans. Some people say that the blue is the truth of humans, but I don't think that quite works. Because the blue isn't really truth. It's only ever speculation. Speculation that can become a fake truth. For example, in Battler and Erika's battle in the ura-tea party of Episode 5, both of them can establish the "truth" using blue. But the two separate truths are completely different. There's no such thing as two separate truths. I can't say "I have two apples" and right after, without gaining more apples "I have three apples," without one of the statements being a lie, or an improper observation. But when you use the gold, it can sometimes beat the red, but also lose against the red. Which is why I think the gold is the human's truth, as the truth of a witness. A witness doesn't need to procure evidence, the point of a witness is to bring proof where physical evidence is lacking. Where there is no evidence against it, the witness' statement becomes truth. Notice how Lambdadelta, as the Game Master, says "gold truth, accepted," when Battler uses it. Like LyricalAura said, the lack of evidence became a weapon for him. Since there is no proof on the island, no one can find truth that denies his witness account. Which is the weak point of the gold. It is the truth, as long as it not contradicted by other truths. With the blue, both "truths" are true and false at the same time. With red, you simply cannot say contradicting statements. The gold is stronger than the red when there is no red proof that can deny it's existence, which Dlanor made unavailable to herself as well when she cut off the red. But if a previously unused red is brought up afterwards, it's like bringing evidence into a court trial which contradicts a witness' statement, making it null. |
2010-05-03, 14:11 | Link #9725 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: In the Meta- World... on Virgillia's bed.
|
Quote:
|
|
2010-05-03, 15:41 | Link #9726 | |
Endless Witch-Doctor
Join Date: Mar 2010
|
Quote:
There are three parts to this problem, right? 1. Proving Kinzo is dead 2. Proving that corpse is Kinzo's dead body 3. How did Battler know the solution to those? The third one is actually easy to answer. Since Battler knew everything at that point, it would make sense for him to know those things for certain. But even if Battler knows it is true, he still needs to prove it. He can't prove it objectively. If you compare it to the scientific paper, Battler's knowledge of the truth would be the conclusion. His assertion that it is Kinzo's corpse would be his hypothesis. All that is left is the experiment and data -- in other words, a demonstration which connects the two together. One kind of demonstration would be Battler's own existence on the island, as I explained in my other posts. Since we don't know the true reason why Rudolf begged his son to come back to the family, I can still speculate that it was because of Kinzo's death. If that were true, it does serve as a proof which connects the two together. Going with the scientific paper analogy even further, let's compare it to the window-jumping scene. Hypothesis: Kinzo jumped out the window and escaped into the forest. Experiment: Battler jumped out the window and landed safely on the ground. Conclusion: It was possible for Kinzo to jump out the window and escape. It fits very nicely, actually. I wonder if the colored truths are just a creative way to go about the scientific method. |
|
2010-05-03, 15:55 | Link #9727 |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
We should remember that figuring out the gold is not about what it does, but how it's used. What situations is it best in and what situations is it bad in. Ryuksihi described it as a like a finishing move in a fighting game, which is EXACTLY how I described it when I related the colored texts to a court case.
One interesting thing though about the braun trial analogy is that we have a thing called double jeopardy in court. In other words if someone is proven innocent for a crime once they can't be accused of that crime a second time. So If Nanjo for example is innocent in episode 1 he'd be innocent in all other games because of double jeopardy .
__________________
|
2010-05-03, 15:59 | Link #9728 | ||
Endless Witch-Doctor
Join Date: Mar 2010
|
Quote:
..because your experiment could be flawed? EDIT : Quote:
|
||
2010-05-03, 16:39 | Link #9729 | |
Maelstorm-Fenrir
|
Quote:
Nanjo was proven innocent in game one's 6-8th twlight = I can't accuse him of being the culprit of that crime (6-8th twilight). If each twilight isn't a different crime, for sure each game could be considered a different crime. (After all the killer HAS to be different for each game) Cause if we say double jeopardy is true(if the crime is all the games) haven't we eliminated everyone? Edit: The meaning for double jeopardy I found was. First, under double jeopardy, a defendant can not be prosecuted a second time for the same offense after an acquittal. The second right that double jeopardy protects is the right a defendant has to not be prosecuted a second time for the same offense after a conviction. Lasly, the same offense can not warrant multiple punishments, or sentences. I know nothing of law though.. so I don't know if this is correct. Last edited by Laserworm; 2010-05-03 at 16:56. |
|
2010-05-03, 16:51 | Link #9730 | |
Dea ex Kakera
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
|
Quote:
So here's a hypothetical usage: Kyrie sees Shannon being scolded harshly by Natsuhi and decides she might be a weak point in the Kinzo coverup. She follows after Shannon to get her alone, and a golden butterfly drifts along behind her. Later, after Shannon has been killed by the murderer, she confronts Natsuhi and claims that Shannon confessed everything to her about Kinzo's death. Effectively, this scene presents Kyrie's claim that "Shannon told me everything about how Father died" without actually stating it outright in gold. And of course, with Shannon dead, there's nobody who can refute that claim except the game master, so it becomes "endless magic".
__________________
|
|
2010-05-03, 17:06 | Link #9731 | |
Endless Witch-Doctor
Join Date: Mar 2010
|
Quote:
Likewise, in a scientific experiment, if there's no way to disprove the "process", then it becomes a "result". I've been thinking about it, and this might be a good way to look at the colored texts: Hypothesis, Experiment, Conclusion Hypothesis, Experiment, False Conclusion In this way, the gold can be weaker than the red, but also stronger. You can have a conclusion, but unless you back it up with a scientific demonstration, it won't have any credibility. Also, you can have an experiment that leads to a false conclusion, making it weaker than the true conclusion. Now, back to what you were saying. If no one is around to disprove it, then even a false conclusion can be accepted as the truth. Maybe Battler was relying on this when he guaranteed Kinzo's death? |
|
2010-05-03, 17:15 | Link #9732 |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
That's not how the scientific method works
EDIT: Oh and there are no "false conclusions" in the scientific method. A theory can be true for the time and be disproven later, but because all the data pointed towards it being true it was not false for it's time. So you can't have a false conclusion. You can have a fudged data, or a failed experiment because of a false hypothesis, but there are no such things as "false conclusions".
__________________
Last edited by Judoh; 2010-05-03 at 17:27. |
2010-05-03, 17:33 | Link #9733 | ||
Endless Witch-Doctor
Join Date: Mar 2010
|
Quote:
-We observed the scene of the crime during the narrative. -Hypothesis: Natsuhi is the culprit. -The hypothesis was tested by proving that everyone else has alibis. The test, or experiment, was flawed. This leads to a false conclusion later on. -Theory: Natsuhi is the culprit because alibis have been proven for all suspects other than her. - (False) Conclusion: Natsuhi is the culprit. But now we know that the conclusion is false. Natsuhi is not the culprit. Quote:
|
||
2010-05-03, 18:02 | Link #9734 |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
I don't understand why the blue can't be used as a conclusion then. There are examples of it doing that even though Battler was reluctant to. And the gold is really just a finishing move it's not really meant to be used often. That's why it was hidden for so long.
Observation: I am Ushiromiya Battler I am the golden witch Beatrice Hypothesis: It is from Asumu that Ushiromiya Battler was born If this Battler is not born from Asumu he is not fit to be my opponent Experiment: The experiment disproved this. Who his mother is is irrelevant to being related to the Ushiromiya family head. Theory: The one who is qualified to be Beato's opponent is 'Kinzo's grandson Ushiromiya Battler', and whether you are 'Asumu's son' or not is no problem Conclusion: Thus, even if you are not Asumu's son, you can be Kinzo's grandson. As long as you are Rudolf's son! No golden truth was necessary to reach the conclusion. Just an unchallenged Blue truth.
__________________
|
2010-05-03, 18:21 | Link #9735 | |
Endless Witch-Doctor
Join Date: Mar 2010
|
Quote:
EDIT: There would need to be an experiment done to prove that Battler is Rudolf's son. That would be the gold text required in order to make the conclusion. |
|
2010-05-03, 18:39 | Link #9736 | |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Quote:
Which makes me wonder what Lambda's position really is since she can make rules for the game out of thin air without the game master's permission.
__________________
|
|
2010-05-03, 18:47 | Link #9737 | |
Back off, I'm a scientist
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
|
Quote:
There is a red by Battler: "Ange is, ...my little sister." Let us assume that the definition of 'mother' requires a blood relation. Then 'little sister', a term from the same group, also has to include only blood relations. Then we must suppose 'the other Battler' must exist or have existed to satisfy "Ushiromiya Battler's mother is Ushiromiya Asumu.", and one of the two must be true, though not necessarily both:
Consequently, if it can be proven that Ange's father is Rudolf and mother is Kyrie, Battler's mother is inevitably Kyrie if this red can be used. So such an experiment need not even involve Battler himself - Ange could order DNA testing on herself in 1998 if any samples of Kyrie and Rudolf's DNA are available. But, if we assume that the terms 'mother' and 'sister' do not necessarily describe a blood relation, but can describe any kind of family bond, all of this mess suddenly disappears together with the other Battler and the name ambiguity rules. EDIT: Mind you, that still wouldn't prove Battler is Kinzo's grandson, unless his own DNA sample were available to establish being related to Rudolf or Krauss.
__________________
|
|
2010-05-03, 19:05 | Link #9739 | |
Back off, I'm a scientist
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
|
Quote:
But the fun part is that they only work with that red about Ange being Battler's sister if 'sister' and 'mother' used in red necessarily involve a blood relation. If we accept that they do so, we need to accept there might be someone else rightfully entitled to the name Battler and reevaluate all red that refers to Battler, because, knowing our luck, this guy is on the island somewhere. If they do not, and can actually describe a family bond not built on blood relation, Battler can actually have a unique name, the other Battler vanishes, but our Battler's identity becomes so much more vague and open to possibilities....
__________________
|
|
2010-05-04, 09:19 | Link #9740 |
Back off, I'm a scientist
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
|
On the matter of Kinzo's corpse. I keep coming back to this problem.
If we are to believe the Ep5 Kinzo Phantom Conspiracy scenes, the following are the facts:
However, the contradiction between the declared goal of the conspiracy and the actual things it ends up doing remains even if that is true, because keeping the corpse around is actually detrimental to the goal of keeping Kinzo's death hidden. Discovery of the body automatically means it fails, preventing discovery requires extra effort for no good reason. There are only a few ways out of this predicament that I see:
So which is it?
__________________
|
|
|