Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-31371445-20170222233857/@comment-32182236-20180708184133

"It's a natural extension of patience."

...Which patience?

"But... I do believe that."

Then why did you just link them together?

"What? What part of this is a "conspiracy" to you?"

That the Ball Game was just a bunch of false flags planted. Don't you recall saying something like that? And doesn't that sound like a conspiracy theory? Here's your exact words:"Also, such would imply that the ball game is not to be trusted. Maybe, this is yet another false flag that Toby planted in."

By the way, my solution is what I offered at the start-This mental note-taking is an actual part of the purple trait.

"It would most certainly be easier, the conspirators can tell you all about that."

Look, it's one thing if it was just the government saying things, without offering good proof, like, say, the denial of the truth the Pentagon Papers later revealed. (Once again, though, in this case, we have no grounds for suspicion in the first place, so that's a problem right there.) It's another when independent scientists have came to this conclusion. In fact, here's a video from another conspiracy theorist, that shows this evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU

...Believe it or not, some conspiracy theories are better (or worse) than others. The moon landing one's one of the worst, beaten (in being bad, that is) only by ones like the Earth being flat, and the world being ruled by a bunch of lizard people... Yes, people actually believe the latter. ...I have no idea where that one came from. My guess is the same type of origin as the Flying Spaghetti Monster (yes, the monster itself, not what it was making fun of) actually being a deity people believe in. (When it was clearly made as a parody.)

"Or Toby didn't think it through and we're allowed to bend this material, finish his work for him. Improve upon it even."

...I thought you said we were supposed to EXCLUDE the meta.

"It is self-enclosed because of the fact that it is practically aware of its own existence, you could say. There is no world beyond the underground, just the credits. There is no past, just the intro."

So.. more gameish than even Glitchtale depicts it as?

"How can you do so and NOT break the rule, when the rule is, that the game is self-enclosed? What would be the point of "the world beyond?""

The world beyond was explicitly mentioned by the monsters. Asriel even gives details about it-There's a lot of Floweys out there. And remember, if the game calls attention to it, it's canon. Though, if we added details to it not mentioned by the game, and that can't be derived by putting the game with logic, THEN we break the rule. Which many fancomics actually do. (Well, we mainly end up choosing a possibility, that is no longer truly canon.)

"It can't be a game, just an idea in your head that you may turn into a fan fiction, or a comic, or an animation, or a free to play game... but never an original Toby Fox-licensed game. Which is the whole point."

Once you start making things up, yes, you're missing the point of the game's story. "Undertale is only a Toby Fox game. It can't be anything else."

You're talking about the game, not the expansive world Toby had in mind when making the game..

..And now I'm using Toby too.. Well, let's just quote the monsters that say there's a Surface world and describe it, and leave it at that.

"And theories... the lore, that was never the focus."

Most of the theories, yes, it wasn't. The lore WAS, and that's what we're trying to piece together.

"You may do it for fun, but it's pointless. For the point is in the game as a whole, in how it makes you feel. Not in its lore."

If Toby wanted to truly make it a canon, RPG game world, where it's canon that it's all a game, he really could have done so. Just take away the power of determination, and replace it with the property of the "player character". Have the characters (mainly Sans) act based upon the fact that once the player finishes the game, the world ends. (Because technically speaking, there's nothing past "The End".)

...You know, from the weird things the fandom came up with, I'm suprised nobody thought to turn this idea into an AU. Playertale got pretty close, though.

...Or were you talking about a different kind of feel?

"The backstory can always be expanded upon by the fans. But there is nothing else hidden in there. We've probed the game throughout, we gave it a complete MRI scan. There's nothing. The game hides no backbone, it just sits in the form it does in for the sake of the player experience. So that it wouldn't be too complicated, but not too broken at the same time either."

I didn't mean one piece of evidence that gives an astonishing revealation. All the pieces have been found. We just have to put them together.

"Which is one of the paradoxes. Frisk has their own name. Can disobey our commands. Feels different about fighting than they do about any other action. Proof: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/373594290817073152/461269357713031189/Bez_nazvu.png"

That's just looking at all the buttons. I fail to see how this proves Frisk has a different feeling of fighting. They're all the same. Which makes sense-WE are Frisk. And we fight if we want to fighht, spare ifmwe want to spare..

"Tell me this. Why did Toby Fox do it so that we would actually question this? If we're them, then explain all of this."

Frisk has their own name because every character has a name, Frisk DOESN'T disobey our commands, remember, what Chara said Frisk didn't do was always something they added onto the action, never actually being the action we selected, and as above, they don't feel different about fighting.

"To me, it feels like Chara is the "player." Always striving for LV, for the "end", and moving on after the job is done."

We don't destroy the world, say we're moving onto the next, and then decide "Nah, just kidding, you're staying here in the void unless you give me your SOUL". Flowey's actually a better parallel to the player, though that's because he had the powers of the player at the time.

"Sure, there's an in-game explanation to their psychosis, but that's not important. What they are right now carries its own message too. A message that is the polar opposite of Frisk."

Um, no, Frisk is totally evil in this run as well. They're the one killing the vast majority of the monsters. Sans hit the nail on the head.

"Shackled by the meta, jailbreaking the rules by disobeying the meta. Either go full in, or full out. You can't do both, it's pointless."

If the game says turns are canon, that belongs in the inner circle. So I'm full in. Using Toby as an argument is how you go out. (And saying stuff the game DOESN'T comment on is canon, like game flags.)

"Doing both at 50% is getting an F from both, at least by the EU school test standards."

That's assuming I only have 100 points and must spread them around, choosing one or the other, when in fact there are places where both collide, and if I place a point there, I get the point in both places.

"But it's not just that. You're not only fulfilling each approach at merely 50%, you're also breaking the rules of the inner one from 50%."

...How? All I need is one hole in my theory, and that'll prove I didn't solely use the canon. Of course, do it from the point of view that what the game comments on and incorporates is what is canon. That's how you knock out things like Mettaton changing the name of the game, or Floweytale.

"The outer one doesn't care, the less you develop that one, the less creativity you have."

Well, we are THEORIZING. If I make a fanfic, I might go full-out, giving an order for the humans falling and everything, but most definitely breaking the rules of the inner circle while doing so, because at that point, the roles are swapped-there, the goal is to tell a creative and compelling story, and adding details not hinted at by the game is a good thing. As is creativity in general. Here's an analogy-Making up a story about the four classical elements of nature? GOOD. Saying those four elements are factually what the world is made of? BAD.

"But the inner one asks you to obey the rules, and you're breaking them by thinking of this GAME as a whole UNIVERSE or something."

As just about all the characters allude to in the game, there IS a universe out there. Not to say that Toby put any thought onto how this outside world is like, but, it's canonically there... But speculation on that matter will get you nowhere-Except for utilizing the little information we DO have about it, to give a vague description on how it is like. Everything past that is baseless speculation. Great for fan comics, though!

"You are trying to give a backstory to Rich Uncle Pennybags's parents over here, in essence. You are quite literally wasting your own time. I am at least putting my theories into use."

....He isn't even a character meant to have a story. He's a mascot and nothing more. (I didn't even know he had a name until now!) Undertale DOES have a story. When Monopoly gets its own story, THEN maybe that analogy will work better.

"Good luck when the game's rules start contradicting themselves."

We'll see what happens.. I haven't spotted any yet, but I haven't finished all my theories either. The basic rules of the world is actually the next one I'm making, though.

"And I wouldn't be this doubtful if they didn't. It's full of loops requiring the employment of tremendous plot gymnastics in order to get untangled."

Hmm, let's see, a DT flux that Undyne already proved was possible, intellegent design, which is a real concept, intepretting care and concern as the more fitting passionate meaning.. Really, the complex hoops were back when I was trying to use our world's physics in Undertale's world, when the two worlds are incompatible.

"And after you've got your dodgy backstory, dodged all the paradox pegs with it, you'll see that it's pointless. Too much information for such a simple game, for such a simple man. If this was Toby's focus, then why the game? Why A game?"

Because a MAJOR point is the choice of the player. How can you do that anywhere else?

"And if a game, this specific kind of a game, then why such a complicated backstory? (surely you won't find an easy solution to all the pegs; if there was one, we would have stumbled upon it years ago already)"

I don't recall anyone interpreting "care and concern" as passion.

"You may use the game's rules, but you are forgetting one: a game is nothing more than its program. If you are using the game's rules, you are employing the biggest shackle of them all, the fact that it's merely just a game."

The first step is to take the game, as is, and turn it into a universe. The game's rules is their universes' rules. Then, stuff not actually mentioned in the newly found universe (which is just a carbon copy of the game, brought to life) can be disregarded. For example, Mettaton changing the name was never brought up-So we can ditch that faster than Frisk ditches Jerry. Seeing as we control Frisk, we take the properties of the player, as described in-universe, and attribuite them to Frisk, uniting the two. However, since the world is no longer a game, its powers must be converted to physical and/or magical abilities, like, say, determination. Then, we take the lines that seemed to refer to something outside the realm the game showed you (like lines about the Surface), and bring them to life as well, making the outside world real as well. (Though vague, since few details are given)

"The only way you can go past this, is to explain everything in this game without going meta."

And never once did I call the world a game. Game-like properties does not make it a game. That's like saying Homo Habilis were humans like us, rather than ancestors, or similar to humans, yet also ape-like.

"YES, even if that includes changing the meaning of lines of the characters. Surely they must have meant something else, of course they didn't mean the world is gridlocked and that there's some player in control of their entire world?"

They never mentioned a player. So we don't have to change anything to say they didn't mean there was a player in control. As for the HUD.. Well, as I said, they could simply be the way their world operates. Think Order of The Stick, but minus the references to it being a game. (And ignore panel 1. The rules never change in Undertale.) Then, add more logic and reason to it-How would the characters ACTUALLY respond to a world like this-Clearly, they wouldn't KNOW about rolls-But a few clever characters WOULD be able to deduce the odds, and find oddities, like how the odds are always multiples of 5%. (Because a d20 is used) Now, back to Undertale. The monsters would clearly know that we can dodge, and that they can't dodge against humans (well, they CAN... But they have no way of knowing how without doing some serious research, because it involves timing your moment based on an invisible cue.) Applying the mechanics to the war, it becomes easy why no humans were killed off-If humans always move first, and monsters can't dodge, and weapons like knives are 99ATK, the vast majority of monsters would be one-shotted, and never get to attack. No wonder they were fearful of their lives. They wouldn't learn of the ability to SAVE either, without research-Vague recollections match deja vu, which could happen even when something hasn't happened before-They'd think their experiences are similar to ours. Seeing a human stopping at a point for apparently no reason would be suspicous, and Sans (And Gaster) would note that, but most monsters wouldn't go on and research that. But, of course, as I just said, Sans and Gaster would.. This would begin their eventual observation of space and time. (Our research has spotted a massive anomaly in the time-space continuum.) This would then lead to research on how the power works, which would invariably lead up to the HUD.

"That's like saying that 1 = 1."

Yeah, super simple stuff. And yet people are willing to ignore it and say it didn't happen... Then again, people think the Earth is flat, so, can we really be suprised?

"Well a judge can call a sentence even with assumptive evidence. Toby is no Scott Hawton. I am willing to bet real money on that."

Yeah, he's a lot closer to Scott Cawthon than whoever Scott Hawton is-You'd win that bet.

...For real, though, Scott has used a lot more metaphors than Toby has. And he's even laid evidence that seems to suggest the whole thing is a dream. He hid in actual ciphers in teasers, and the ever-so famous technique where you had to brighten up images to see secrets. Toby never did that, neither do I believe we should look for ciphers or brighten up images of the game's trailer. (Or the game itself, in case you're wondering.) Their storytelling is indeed, quite different. They only things they have in common is that they're indie games with a deep lore. And I'm not sure about FNAF in the latter case, because the books are supposedly both canon and non-canon at the same time. Want a story with massive contradictions? FNAF is for you then. (Gravity Falls is better. Too bad it's over.)

"If you believe that a crash implies a character trying to lock you out of the game, then anything is possible."

Yeah, if the crash wasn't intentional by the developer like Flowey' crash. Which was still not a reference to it being a game anyway.

"I have honestly no idea where else would you like to look."

Just look at the evidence, and find out how it fits together. Multiple evidence combined can reveal new information. Kind of like Sudoku, if you think about it..

"I do too. I just like to scratch the part that looks like a game."

...That's NOT giving it an explanation, that's removing parts of canon. I meant in the same way saving has an in-game explanation.

"If it's not a game, then there are no turns, no invisible slashes, no smashing of buttons / no buttons at all in fact."

Sans shows the opposite.

"Although, I do believe the possibility of the buttons being laid out in one way or another. But not as actual physical rectangles. Hallucinations of rectangles? Maybe."

Perhaps, but there has to be some reason why pressing these hallucinations has a real effect. Hence why I consider them real. But, likely intangible like ghosts.

"Idc that Toby said that all these things are canon. So they are. So what. It's not like I'm actually breaking this presumption, I'm just putting a different spin on it all so that it would make more sense according to the rules of the real universe, instead of the rules of a computer screen."

You ARE breaking it, though. Just explain what was said by the game. Explain how Sans took advantage of the turn-based system, if it doesn't exist, and how we basically cheated the system by moving the box.

"Okay, so something somewhere is projecting the entire reality. Some ultimate supercomputer, a reality machine. That's how no one can be real, and how buttons can seemingly pop up around, people be locked into turns, while at the same time being as complex as us in the real life (if it ever comes to questioning their body composition).

But I don't believe that. I don't believe their universe is like from the movie Matrix, I believe that their reality is genuine."

Well, there is one thing in there that you "explained" they you didn't need to, being an assumption:That the characters aren't "real". That was never stated, so you can just assume that they are real. Maybe that'll help you out, now that you have one less constant to uphold to. ...Then again, you eere trying to explain it using code, so.. I supoose that's the best you can do there. And that's pretty good for a code-based theory.

"And I don't know of a genuine universe that would be able to cast and sustain perfect rectangles with text out of nothing, that just sounds like yet another computer thing to me, not as a universe with different physical laws or whatever you're calling it."

In the quatum state, small have appeared and then disspeared out of nothing-Zero matter turning into positive mass and negative mass, before they both vanished. And, this text is clear evidence that the world has a designer.. For the reasons you stated. But it doesn't necessarily make it fake. It just means that some god/godess exists in their world.

"Even though other parts of the game suggest she may have been wrong on this one?"

They don't, though. All we have is one correlation that means absolutely nothing. Monsters have less of both, and humans have more of both. Monsters are more fluent in magic, does that mean magic is inversely related to DT?

"I mean sure, don't contradict the game, and don't question it if the info is established seemingly for no reason (e.g. the intro). But if a character appears to be contradicted by an in-game rule?"

What rule?

"Or if a new piece of info comes to contradict the intro later on? Could it be, could it just be, that the character was wrong, and that the intro fed us false info for the sake of a plot twist or something?"

The character being wrong can work, but we have no evidence to suggest so, and the book can easily be interpreted to make both true. (By the way, the intro would be more trustworthy under this lense.)

"Such wouldn't be uncommon, mind you. If the intro were to be explained as a folklore or something (and that appears to be the case), then what if?"

The intro matches Asriel's flashback-It's the game giving us a flashback, if anything. Speaking OF folklore doesn't mean it IS folklore. After all, we've been talking about chakras:Does that mean we believe everything about them?

"Uh... no? Gaster? The surnames of the monsters? The pre-war era? The missing monster history volumes? Shit's missing all over the place, and you keep telling me we haven't looked deep enough. Ask on /r/underminers, would you? There is no confirmation about the true nature of the color red anywhere in the game."

Not directly. Hence why we need to piece together the evidence the game laid out. And really, I'm using this to show why saying the game is self-enclosed in that regard is a bad statement. Of course making a conclusion from just that is a bad move, as you later point out.

"And if you're this quick to start making conclusions, then lemme make a few ones as well. We have ONE (1) correlation between DT and soul power, and we have ZERO (0) counterpoints."

Alphys is a counterpoint.

"Nothing can strike away the fact that the more DT a being has, the more powerful its soul is. So let me just state that this is a confirmation."

Yep. You've done it. We can do that with anything if we say the game is fully self-enclosed. Just like in our world, there are mysteries we will never be able to solve. And there are mysteries we'll have to think logically about, instead of saying the game will directly say what it is. I applaud you in the same way with your part about Toriel, so, let's skip to where I have something new to say.

"But even outside this thing we're currently doing here, your belief that Toriel was merely having a Chara flashback, which JUST so happened to be identical to the deja vus the other characters were getting, is still incredibly foolish and petty."

I'd say it's closer to Asriel projecting Chara onto us, but, unlike Asriel, Toriel actually knows the difference.

"What exactly is preventing you from accepting this theory, in light of all this evidence, as a fact? I would understand the DT = soul power one being a bit sloppy, but this just makes no sense to me."

The Asgore problem, and Sans only spotting one anomaly. (If you're wondering why I didn't use my other arguments, remember, the other kids saving and loading would not disprove that red is determination, so I can't use other evidence of that to indirectly attack this bit.)

"There is nothing left. This game is dead. No one is playing it anymore. The only thing living on now, no, surviving, is the fandom."

It's not pieces of evidence from the game, it's putting those pieces together.

"Would you look at the evidence then too? Toriel did have a proper reload deja vu."

Why didn't Undyne?

"I never said you can't. But such theories cannot have a concrete answer. They just present the facts and let YOU make a conclusion out of it for yourself."

Not always...

"Then I change it. I won't just white it out, obviously. But we could get arbitrarily close while not giving in to the meta. The HUD may as well be canon, but the characters themselves won't notice anything, because I've modified it so much. I mean, personally, the most I will allow myself is the existence of the buttons in some form."

The buttons exisitng in some form is also the least that I say we can go, and the most that is actually used in the story. Looks like that's the common ground. Minus the turns, that is, if you think that's "greater" than that.

"Was it though? Sure, the wall blocking us from returning may have been a plot mechanic, but the purple door certainly wasn't."

Yes, it's a real door.

"It looks the same whether the barrier is there or not."

Dark. As if there was no sunlight to come out.

"So I'd like to know an answer to this. Does the barrier like, disappear or something when you approach it too closely, while it looks white and hypnotizing from afar?"

Well, the battle against Asgore, the white room, involves Asgore showing us six SOUL containers, three on the left, and three on the right. The distance they span is greater than the visible distance of the room itself. Not only that, the entire room appears to be a void, the garden isn't visible at all. Perhaps this isn't Room 2 at all, but a different room? After Asriel's battle, we were sent back to Room 1.. After Omega Flowey, you suggest we were sent past the Barrier.. While I now suggest that we were simply sent BACKWARDS, just like with Asriel. Asgore's room being beyond the purple door, as the Barrier is clearly visible there, while we can't see any sunlight coming from the purple door, implying the Surface is not just past that door-There's more to it that was just skipped. Like, say, the room where we actually battle Asgore, which would have its white-shining properties removed.

...That or the fact that we're not in a cutscene means the HUD display swapped back to top-down, and thus doesn't display what was past the door. It depends on whether not involving the HUD or being somewhat simple is what you're looking for.

"So you will transform a soup into a soup. Good riddance there."

Yes, it's pretty much the same thing. That's my point. My theories are supposed to show how the game canon is like. Altering the nature of canon would go against that. If in canon, we have some game mechanics, and some real-world mechanics, that should be reflected.

"The game is based on conditions. You make up universal rules and patch them with conditions. How is that any different again?"

It's not. And it's not supposed to be. I'm analyzing Undertale, not Fanontale.

"We must allow ourselves fluidity. Everything in the real world, minus the quantum world, is based on fluidity, nothing is quantized."

Matter can't be created or destroyed, there's clear formulas for how all of physics world, you can determine the exact projectory of a coin flip if you calculate everything right... Our world is VERY deterministic. EXCEPT on the quantum level. Maybe. (Possible theory that denies that even this is an exception:Pilot wave theory)

"In Undertale, even the macro cosmos is quantized, apparently. And that's a sign it is a game. That's what we have to get rid of."

...Things are quantized here too. Also, we really don't know how things work outside the Underground.

"Technically, everything in the game is canon. So why are we still refusing to accept certain things as canon? Could it be due to our subjectiveness after all?"

Taking those as canon gives massive problems-As bad as, or possibly worse, the problems you had said would happen from considering the HUD as canon-Your "slippery slope" would have in fact hit rock bottom. For example, let's say Mettaton canonically changed the name of the game.. Wait, it was never indicated that it was, it's just that it changed when Mettaton was performing a musical-That could be interpreted as the game being.. sentient..? Well, the alternative is that Mettaton is self-aware and can break the game's code like that, meaning that he's both sentient and non-sentient at the same time. We have Sans, who discovered the mechanics of the game, but not that this IS a game, and while Mettaton got the game to change its name, Sans isn't hacking the game in his battle? (I mean full-on hacking, not just exploiting the HUD system.) We start running into actual contradictions, and a massive number of them, and they're FAR more significant than the position of a Barrier.

"There are no holes if you just look at it from a different angle. And who's to say what's right and what isn't here, where is the lore police?"

When your theory about what the traits are doesn't actually match the trait description, and flat-out contradicts them, there are objectively holes. Also, who's to say what's scientific and what isn't here, where is the science police?

"Too simple to bare any meaning. Besides, you've left out the category when something seemingly canon might not be canon, due to contradictions."

Such contradictions haven't been established yet. But, remember, if we see a note say something, the canon fact is that the note says that thing-Not necessarily that what the note says is correct and/or telling the truth. So that should help resolve these.

"And you said the word mayhem has a specific meaning. I guess it doesn't then. I guess it's just a synonym for a play, a game."

No, it still does. Mayhem means chaos. But, the description only says that you used surefire accuracy to the the mayhem of BALL. It never says you used the opposite of chaos, just that you ended chaos. That's what I meant. So if a different trait uses surefire accuracy to end chaos, that can also be yellow.

"And why isn't it?"

..Um, it is. Perhaps you meant "why SHOULDN'T it?" In which case, the idea is:Calling it the mayhem of ball rather than just BALL like the other times is uneccesary, and a waste, unless it's important in some way, regarding the trait. And since it is, then that's important."

"And why wouldn't the game be considered as mayhem, if we consider mayhem as a synonym for a game, play, or a run?"

Look up the definition of mayhem. You'll see there's no fit.

"It's order because it "puts an end to the mayhem"."

"Aaaaand now it is order again. Choose already."

I'm saying it's order, and giving you a chance to debunk my proof, or just add another trait to that, by presenting an alternate meaning that fits the criteria. So, are you willing to present an alternate trait that uses surefire accuracy to put a stop to chaos?

"Nah. I don't think Sans is retarded. He likes to crack funny bones here and there, that's all."

He did say he was joking at the end, though. Heh, maybe he was doing that here. In any case, we shouldn't use that as evidence. But, as I showed later on, the game DOES reinforce that definition of standing your own.

"Well you gotta attack eventually. So postpone it."

As long as you possibly can.

"There is no natural way of doing that."

...As memories start to become less concrete, one can "recall" false things about what happened. We don't remember everything perfectly. There are mistakes in there. These mistakes are what I'm talking about. (Also why some people "recall" playing Polybius-They're probably thinking about Poly-play.)

"Except, it doesn't move you through time, it moves things through time to you. But again, we get to the border issue. What's the difference between cyan and orange? They could be summarized as just inverses of each other and yet, they have different colors."

Interestingly, inverse colors. Though I still consider fear as the true inverse.

"Similarly with red and purple, if you believe that red is DT that is."

Red's supposed to combine the other traits, purple SHOULD have some traits of DT within it.

"And the same for green and yellow. Green is nothing but time. Yellow can be time, or mind. So naturally, it must be mind."

Or it's not anything at all, because Infinity Stones from Marvel don't match traits from Toby Fox. What's next, will there be a connection between the echo flowers from Undertale and poison joke from MLP? They do have the same appearance as each other...

"Then why has he not stated so?"

He HAS. Through Sans.

"We could have figured out that Asgore was a coward WITHOUT Toriel explaining it to us."

I have a feeling you would call it a plot hole if we took away that dialouge, then wiped everyone's memory of ever seeing that dialouge, or any conclusions anyone has made FROM that dialouge. (Including the two of us.) In fact, in the early days, this problem was actually considered a plot hole by a tiny fraction of the fandom (because they didn't do their research): https://www.reddit.com/r/Undertale/comments/3yz4te/why_did_asgore_need_7_human_souls_to_cross_the/

Take away that quote, and there would be a lot more people calling this a plot hole.

"I mean, take a look at the conspiracies we are threading over here. So if that happened, why did the invisibility explanation not happen? And even IF it was invisible, how come no one ever questioned it."

How can you question what you don't know even exists?

"And how did Gaster discover it?"

Perhaps through the anomalies that Chara was creating via SAVing and LOADing. Gaster would then analyze exactly what Chara was doing, noticing a pattern in hand motions, just before the anomaly happens. It's kind of like how someone can guess what password you typed in even when they can't see the screen, just by where you move your fingers, and where the buttons SHOULD be. He would link each motion with effects, and eventually have successfully reverse-engineered how that segment of the HUD works-There's a button here that does this function, etc.. He wouldn't see the text that way, but nobody mentions the text anyway, and it's already clear that the human has some way of knowing what button does what. He would take a similar approach in battles, taking note of a human's motions, just before their supposed attack, action, etc.

"No exceptions. Sans said that 20 is the maximum. He obviously knows everything. Isn't that right? Besides, why would such a system transform the number 20 to the number 9999 upon absorbing 6 souls. Like, what kind of pseudo math is behind that?"

The same pseduo-math that makes a monster with a human SOUL powerful enough to destroy an entire village. Adding physical matter with magic DRASTICALLY boosts your overall power in this manner. Also, since we already know he's joking about Toriel's integrity, what's to say he isn't just saying that 20's the maximum.. For us? We are the one being judged, after all. (Plus, if he doesn't know that Flowey's the main cause of the anomalies, he clearly doesn't know EVERYTHING.)

"He got great copying skills."

...At least that proves that Flowey had a HUD at one point. But, tell me, what's the thing saying what file's been saved and loaded if it's not the HUD? (Which belongs to FLOWEY at this point.)

"The middle ages would have been too late. I was thinking the late iron age or so. You know, 2000 minus 2000. The vedas already existed back then, so why not?"

Well, yeah, it did.