Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-31371445-20170222233857/@comment-27136653-20180710015035

"Nice to see that you've given up all credibility simply for the chance to be "hip" with the kids."

No, I'm just ignoring everything you say at this point.

"Since when does immaturity and trolling count as defending?"

I am occassionally providing some answers still, am I not?

"I am not a scientist working at a university."

Too bad for you.

"We see these laws and rules as we play the game, your above statement is nothing but trying to explain how they work."

The game behaves according to its code, further proving that it should be a simulation according to your interpretation.

"Our world =/= The world of Undertale."

Indeed. It's a simple simulation, ours is not... as simple. I'm not denying we are living in a simulation either.

"Can you perhaps give references, proof, and instances of the "most of the time" aspect of this statement?"

It's not a rule, but it's the simplest explanation. So assuming an equal distribution of probabilistic parameters, this option should be the case for most of the statistical samples we are speaking of.

"And the reason this can't be one of these "not all of the time" instances is because?"

Because there's literally nothing to suggest otherwise. Occam's razor.

"I do like the Matrix after all."

Cool. That makes two of us :)

"Then you've contradicted yourself here, because you're blatantly admitting here that you, in fact, do not understand the basic concepts of a parallel/alternate universe."

Perhaps we simply disagree on what counts as a "parallel universe" and what just sounds like a plain nonsense.

"In other words, "Ignore canon elements actually mentioned, referenced, and spoken of as real things in the games world for my fanon!""

Exactly. For the sake of making the universe more similar to our own. Please, if you can explain how a button with a text can exist without any pixels or a font sub-program generating it all, I'm all ears.

"No, my interpretation is exactly what I said prior."

Then perhaps explain the obliviousness of the monsters to everything weird we do. Such as, unexpectedly striking them (since how else do you explain them not dodging our attacks at all?), or the fights being locked into a turn-based combat. The basic logic of what WE know is, that simultaneity never breaks down. It may get warped, but only under extreme circumstances, and can NEVER be broken or restricted. At least, not the way we see it happening in the game. So tell me, where's the explanation of that? Sans mentions turns, yes, but he's an exception. He probably already accepted the idea. But the same cannot be said about the rest of the monsterkind. Literally none of them question why they can't dodge you or attack while you're attacking them.

"brought up in the game itself"

"Let's erase this pointless world, and move onto the next." - Seems like they're speaking of games to me. For them, it may be their reality, but they certainly know about the existence of other games, and accepted the gaming stereotype of living for the increase of stats. I'd say they're pretty aware that they're just playing a game. Because no one could be this psychotic naturally.

"For someone who keeps trying to separate fanon from canom, you sure do love mixing the two simply for the sake of your own arguments."

I actually never said it does confirm it. It doesn't, I just went with your babble and found you a quote I thought was fitting enough for a confirmation of this "matrix world" or whatever. If you think I'm not aware of what I'm talking about, well, think again. I'm not stupid, and I have the following rules:

The UT world is self-enclosed, for its bad merger of the lore and the meta. Ergo, all explanations default to the game's code. Of course, that's dumb. So, I allow myself to theorize about things that don't involve the meta. As for the meta, that's still under the code rule. And if it ever comes to the merging of the two, the meta must be disregarded, for sanity's sake.

That's it. That's my mantra.

"I'm going to reply."

idc