[Game] Umineko no Naku Koro ni Chiru - Ep. 6 Dawn of the golden witch

[Judoh]

We've reached a nonsense. The red can now 'metaphorically' proclaim someone is dead when they don't exist.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Judoh

We've reached a nonsense. The red can now metaphorically proclaim someone is dead when they don't exist.

If that's nonsense, then Beatrice using red about Sakutaro was nonsense. The red does not say that Kanon is a human being (the red about him dying).

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

If that's nonsense, then Beatrice using red about Sakutaro was nonsense. The red does not say that Kanon is a human being (the red about him dying).

Neither does it for Shannon. At least for Kanon we have the words 'Killed' and 'victim' in his reds. Suggesting he at least has a body or is affected in some way.

With Sakutarou you have them openly referring to a stuffed animal. (So yeah the reds about Sakutarou are not metaphor)

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

I just think that I've already provided an answer to that question.

Not really, you didn't.

The hole is the "everyone". There is no way for a human to know with certainty what everyone in a specific set of people actually believes, let alone in an undetermined large set of people like "everyone at large". Information spreads along trust connection lines and does not propagate instantaneously, acts of communication are required for this to happen.

In a closed room situation with Sayo and Hideyoshi in the room, "everyone" is limited to Hideyoshi and Sayo, because other people cannot observe what goes on inside the room. If Sayo is presented with a statement that Hideyoshi believes Kanon is dead, and that this happened while Sayo herself could not observe what is happening to her own body, Kanon's life or death status becomes undefined, it only depends on whether Sayo considers herself an unbreakable authority on the life or death status of Kanon or not.

If "everyone" always includes Sayo herself, then a situation is possible where the island population is split (like in Ep4 or Ep6) and communication between two sets is impossible. Then, it is possible for Sayo's perception of the situation to get desynchronised with everyone else's -- for example, the group Sayo was in believes Kanon to be alive, while the other group just saw something they thought was a dead body Nanjo identified as Kanon. The opposite is possible in the same way.

Which essentially means that Kanon's life or death status in red has no relation to what anyone other than Sayo believes.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Which essentially means that Kanon's life or death status in red has no relation to what anyone other than Sayo believes.

And Sakutarou's death has no relation to what anyone other than Maria believes. For Maria, the 'rule' is that the vessel must be whole. For Sayo, the 'rule' is that people must believe that Kanon's death occurred.

And no, this isn't cheap, if you first understand what Kanon is. If the word "Kanon" refers to a character invented by a single person, then it makes sense that this person's mind controls the fate of this person.

[k//eternal]

Pardon the interruption, but can we agree that most people's problem with this particular Shkanon theory is that it's too "cheap" and "easy"? In that case, trying to poke holes at it is fruitless, because as you've already noted, it's kind of an amorphous thing. As far as I've seen, it's quite consistent internally as well. If you want to attack it, a better approach is to come up with alternative theories that are solid without being "cheap".

The starting point is the "17 including Erika" red, of course. I'll mention, though, that without two Battlers or Kanons, Ghosterika is very likely invalid. Regarding Battler's closed room, it's been said that "Three people--in other words, three bodies--went in or out.". It's also confirmed that the only people to pass through are Battler, Erika, and Kanon (It refers to three people: you, Battler, and Kanon.), and that "all people can only use their own names.".

In short, if Ghosterika is true, then the third body has to also be Battler or Kanon. (If somebody identifying as Erika passes through, I'd consider her to be real, and if that person isn't the Erika we see, then that's no less "cheap" than Shkanon.)

[Joneleth]

How about this :

In EP4 Battler asks Kinzo to red that no one shares first names on the island, and Kinzo couldn't.


Battler and Kanon are different people.

Kanon is Asumu's Battler in reality.

Officially Rudolf has one son named Battler but unofficially he has 2.

So there are two people named Ushiromiya Battler on the island but officially only one exist.

Battler already suggested the possibility that he's Natsuhi's hidden son, so it might in fact be Asumu's Battler. In Ep6 we learn Rudolf promised he would take care of Kyrie's son. Since Natsuhi didn't get pregnant Kinzo might have asked Rudolf he stole Kyrie's son or something. But Rudolf kept him and gave Natsuhi Asumu's Battler.

Ok now to link Kanon to Natsuhi's son. Well for starters Kinzo said the baby comes from the orphanage and he really hates Natsuhi. ok that's not much.

More interesting is Natsuhi's dead in Ep1. She suddenly freaks out and leaves after reading an unknown letter. If it's a letter from her son she might have done that. However by process of elimination we already now Kanon killed her in Ep1.

[chronotrig]

Well, hopefully, Ryuukishi will be able to describe the answer a lot better than I've been able to describe this theory. And it may well be that there are more restrictions that I haven't found out yet, even if I am right.

[k//eternal]

Originally Posted by Joneleth

How about this :

In EP4 Battler asks Kinzo to red that no one shares first names on the island, and Kinzo couldn't.


Battler and Kanon are different people.

Not to say the same of your idea, but I always thought Battler defeating Kinzo-dragon with that line was very funny, because it was already established that Shannon has at least two names. Silly Kinzo

If Kanon is Asumu-Battler, why do Kanon and Battler have three bodies between the two of them?

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

And no, this isn't cheap, if you first understand what Kanon is. If the word "Kanon" refers to a character invented by a single person, then it makes sense that this person's mind controls the fate of this person.

Sure. But then, we get a situation when some statements in red describe purely subjective facts ("Kanon is dead") and a situation where Kanon may go alive or dead in red depending on which observers Sayo comes into contact with or nothing at all while other statements in red describe objective facts. ("There are five master keys.")

Which expands the witch darkness drastically, as we cannot in good conscience be certain which of the red statements are objective anymore.

If you think you can formulate a strict rule from that and resolve this situation bringing the witch darkness to manageable levels again, more power to you, but you have so far avoided formulating strict rules.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Sure. But then, we get a situation when some statements in red describe purely subjective facts ("Kanon is dead") and a situation where Kanon may go alive or dead in red depending on which observers Sayo comes into contact with or nothing at all while other statements in red describe objective facts. ("There are five master keys.")

Which expands the witch darkness drastically, as we cannot in good conscience be certain which of the red statements are objective anymore.

If you think you can formulate a strict rule from that and resolve this situation bringing the witch darkness to manageable levels again, more power to you, but you have so far avoided formulating strict rules.

Wait, it does describe an objective fact. If Sayo decides that Kanon is dead, it is an objective fact that she made that decision. And it is not a trivial fact, since it drastically influences her behavior from that point forward.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Wait, it does describe an objective fact. If Sayo decides that Kanon is dead, it is an objective fact that she made that decision. And it is not a trivial fact, since it drastically influences her behavior from that point forward.

But until she actually takes any actions which unambiguously allow to identify that she believes Kanon is dead, the insides of her head remain a black box. We also can't tell if she's lying to anyone by acting like Kanon is dead when she in fact believes he is alive.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Oliver

But until she actually takes any actions which unambiguously allow to identify that she believes Kanon is dead, the insides of her head remain a black box. We also can't tell if she's lying to anyone by acting like Kanon is dead when she in fact believes he is alive.

You could say that the red about Kanon dying shows us the contents of the black box. We can't know the details of what goes on inside her head, but if Shkanon is true, half of the mystery is finding out how Sayo thinks anyways (which is why we've been discussing this). I think it's possible to use clues and circumstantial evidence to build up a pretty detailed picture of Sayo's thoughts. All we need is some assumptions about what she was planning to do before the crime.

Also, that second line. She believes that Kanon is alive if his life is believed in. So, if she's supposed to think that Kanon is dead, then everyone else probably thinks it...which would mean that he is dead, by her system.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

I could count a lot of people that did this in several occasions. You and Oliver included.

I have never intended to do so outside the context of supposition, and I have never operated from the basis that my "theory" - whatever my pet theory is considered to be, as I do not believe you can state one - is assuredly true, and thus that I am explaining rather than speculating. It's dishonest of you to say so without an example.

As for Oliver, while I can't entirely speak for him, I do not believe he has ever, under any circumstances, done what you accuse him of doing. I have never seen him be anything but clearly speculative, and if he is being purely speculative, he cannot have been intellectually dishonest (as he is admitting he's just guessing and pulling at threads of ideas). So I don't think you're being fair to him. Have a spat with me if you like, I know we argue, but I don't think it's right to pull him into this.

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Wait, it does describe an objective fact. If Sayo decides that Kanon is dead, it is an objective fact that she made that decision. And it is not a trivial fact, since it drastically influences her behavior from that point forward.

Again, prove that Meta-Beatrice operates on "Sayo's" mode of definition and thinking. If you cannot, how do you know what the red means to her vs. what it means to others?

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by k//eternal

Pardon the interruption, but can we agree that most people's problem with this particular Shkanon theory is that it's too "cheap" and "easy"? In that case, trying to poke holes at it is fruitless, because as you've already noted, it's kind of an amorphous thing. As far as I've seen, it's quite consistent internally as well. If you want to attack it, a better approach is to come up with alternative theories that are solid without being "cheap".

The starting point is the "17 including Erika" red, of course. I'll mention, though, that without two Battlers or Kanons, Ghosterika is very likely invalid. Regarding Battler's closed room, it's been said that "Three people--in other words, three bodies--went in or out.". It's also confirmed that the only people to pass through are Battler, Erika, and Kanon (It refers to three people: you, Battler, and Kanon.), and that "all people can only use their own names.".

In short, if Ghosterika is true, then the third body has to also be Battler or Kanon. (If somebody identifying as Erika passes through, I'd consider her to be real, and if that person isn't the Erika we see, then that's no less "cheap" than Shkanon.)

I'm terribly sorry but ANY theory is amorphous. The notion that John Q. Public came out of no where with the perfect theory that needed no changes is very, very unlikely. There are just two types of people here, one that can believe in Shkanon because the game gives hints to vessels and personalities and how they work or people who are too stubborn to let others believe in it.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

You could say that the red about Kanon dying shows us the contents of the black box. We can't know the details of what goes on inside her head, but if Shkanon is true, half of the mystery is finding out how Sayo thinks anyways (which is why we've been discussing this). I think it's possible to use clues and circumstantial evidence to build up a pretty detailed picture of Sayo's thoughts. All we need is some assumptions about what she was planning to do before the crime.

In this case, I'm afraid a detailed discussion on this subject is impossible until a complete writeup on your interpretation of Shkanon as a paradigm exists. Various components you previously posted are not really it, and they're really hard to search for anyway. Studying someone's complicated psyche is hard enough without having to do that among murder mystery puzzles.

While I have lots of objections to Shkanon from numerous viewpoints that are my subjective business, I'm ready to put them aside for the purposes of discussion, but that discussion must be over something as complete as possible.

[k//eternal]

Originally Posted by Smeckledorf

I'm terribly sorry but ANY theory is amorphous. The notion that John Q. Public came out of no where with the perfect theory that needed no changes is very, very unlikely. There are just two types of people here, one that can believe in Shkanon because the game gives hints to vessels and personalities and how they work or people who are too stubborn to let others believe in it.

That's perfectly fine. I don't have an issue with that, I just want to see solid alternatives to Shkanon.

If people just sit around trying to poke holes in it, that's a waste of time compared to trying to find an alternative theory.

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by k//eternal

That's perfectly fine. I don't have an issue with that, I just want to see solid alternatives to Shkanon.

If people just sit around trying to poke holes in it, that's a waste of time compared to trying to find an alternative theory.

I agree completely, those people can post other theories instead of poking holes in something that they have no reason to really. The only really 'poking of holes' I see is people saying Shkanon is an opinion and denying it with their own opinions. Which is actually pretty funny because it is a blatant contradiction.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Oliver

In this case, I'm afraid a detailed discussion on this subject is impossible until a complete writeup on your interpretation of Shkanon as a paradigm exists. Various components you previously posted are not really it, and they're really hard to search for anyway. Studying someone's complicated psyche is hard enough without having to do that among murder mystery puzzles.

While I have lots of objections to Shkanon from numerous viewpoints that are my subjective business, I'm ready to put them aside for the purposes of discussion, but that discussion must be over something as complete as possible.

Yeah, that's a good point. Obviously, I haven't had the time lately (had a bit of translating to do), but I would like to write something up sooner or later, at least for this part. And I'm at a bit of a disadvantage, since I'm not sure what theories you and Renall are holding these days.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by k//eternal

That's perfectly fine. I don't have an issue with that, I just want to see solid alternatives to Shkanon.

If people just sit around trying to poke holes in it, that's a waste of time compared to trying to find an alternative theory.

We have at least ten alternate theories. Let me look for it....