Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-31371445-20170222233857/@comment-31536324-20180710222156

"If there's a player, then there's a game to be played. And the anomaly was Flowey."

The Player IS the anomaly, that's how they're explained in the game. Even if Flowey was at one point, it's quite clear to Sans that the balance of power has shifted to someone or something else.

"I don't know of any airplanes. Are you sure you're not confusing this with Oneshot? /s"

I will admit that this one was funny; also, I never played One Shot.

"Neither is the opposite."

When, where, and how?

"I thought Toby said in the kickstarter that ALL these things are in fact canon. Which would include everything that everyone says .3."

Never saw the kickstarter page, so this has no effect or meaning to me.

"Also, wow, have you noticed? Wikia's got a new look! I like it."

Laptop hates wikia sites, doing all of this from my phone, so no.

">that moment when you're so deep into the meta being canon bs that you start disregarding the meta itself

Oh what a silly turn of events!"

How?

"I tried it once. Didn't work. You keep trying if you want, but opt me out of it."

How, what method did you try? My method has been working swimmingly, and I haven't had to resort to code or Toby once.

"Define "merging". THC is trying to merge the two. I am trying to explain the meta using some more sensible concepts, that wouldn't be so... "meta". In fact, you just did that yourself, when you said that Chara talked about a different reality, not about a different game. But even then, the problem is that the different game explanation still makes more sense than anything else. Just like Sans speaking of turns as actual hard-coded turns.

So now we fall back to the fundamental issue. Occam's razor is telling us that the meta is canon in some ways. So maybe it's all canon? Not just the things explicitly stated so, but also the implied ones (such as, the slashes being invisible, or anyone not being able to move anywhere during a battle; though, NOT the stuff like the game's name changing or whatever, that's still not canon, because it's completely unrelated).

And if that's the case, we are working with a world, whose rules we already know - it is obeying its code. What's the point in creating theories that don't deal with the code then however? That's the problem, Undertale works as a game. Trying to extend its story requires you to assume that it isn't bound by its code, ergo, that it is not obeying it, ergo, that the meta is NOT canon.

You're seeing what I mean now?"

1A. The mixing/combining of two or more things.

1B. In a meta sense, yes. In an in-universe sense, no.

2. Hit the nail right on the head in this paragraph.

3. The code itself is not a canon part of the game. Things like the HUD, Stats, Inventory, Battle System, Turns, LV, and EXP are, but the code itself is not. Meta =/= Code.

4. No, not really.

"That's trollist."

Eh.

"Most of them haven't met a human before. This is new to them. And we know for a fact that it doesn't apply in between them, since Asgore could dodge Undyne's attacks, according to her."

Simple, those that haven't met a human came to be after the war. There are those that know, and know how to do it; and those that know, and don't know how to do it.

"Common sense. Is it more similar to a simulation than to a real universe? It's a simulation. You can't walk up to me, give me an apple and say, "this is an orange". It's not. And I won't believe it even if Toby Fox himself said so. Not even the creator himself has the liberty to say that something is the way it is without a proper explanation. He doesn't own the concept of logic after all.

If someone gives me an exact set of rules that describe how these things can be real, while not requiring a computer screen to be generated, I'm all ears. Such an explanation would be completely new to me. It's like trying to fit a square object through a round hole. It looks impossible, but if you claim it's not, I'd like to see you do it."

Simple, they're natural laws and priciples of the world.

"I myself simply trim the square object into a round one so that it fits. Sure, I could use a square hole instead of a round one, but that's not what you want either, since a square hole = simulation. Round hole = reality. Square object = meta. Round object = non-meta.

A funny analogy, isn't it?"

One that needs multiple readings to get, but yes. How is it that I understood the Architect's explanation on Neo perfectly fine after hearing it once, but needed to read this more than once to understand it.

"That works, and I accept such explanation. But the power to stop anyone from moving, just to let them battle normally, while making it so that they don't question it, nor so that they question our invisible slashes... that's a bit specific even for magic. You may say it's DT and that would be TRUE, after all, the HUD belongs to the most determined being only. But this is not what the DT is said to do. It is the HUD itself. But where did the HUD come from? And most importantly, WHY does it work the way it does? It cannot be without an explanation that utilizes nothing but the stuff we already know of, e.g. physical matter and magic, after all. Else, it may as well be an out-univserse construct, proving again that everything is just a simulation."

1. The HUD clearly has an effect on the world, and can clearly be effected by denizens of the world. So it can't be an out-of-universe construct.

2. No, not said, but it is SHOWN, which trumps words every time until proven false. Which it can't in this case.

3. How the battle system works is never stated or implied to be a power of the HUD, DT, Player/Anomaly, or Frisk. Remember, it's the monsters initiating the fights.

4. They clearly had to have questioned, tested, and accepted it before the events of the game. Otherwise they'd be doing amidst the events of the game.

"So much pride for such a miniscule difference. A bit weird, wouldn't you say? The monsters had lots of petty reasons to be proud of their magical abilities, but nothing important. What are magical butterflies for, if you lose the war? I'd say their pride comes from the fact that they can use magic in the first place."

We as a species have been prideful over height, skin color, private part sizes, and material items; all of which are just as weird. I don't think the monsters would be too different in this case.

"And those humans that did use magic, as stated in the Waterfall plaques, one of whom was showcased in the intro also, were probably just an exception. Maybe... they had a rare white soul trait? Or maybe... they weren't humans at all, but something else? Or maybe... they killed some monsters and absorbed their souls, giving themselves magic?"

With the exception of the disguises, all of these do have merit. But with the information we have, some are less likely than others. The seven that made the barrier are stated to be some of the humans most powerful magicians, not the only ones they have. Implying that many more do exist.

The soul is the culmination of your entire being, of your deepest essence (according to Shyren), and the colors of the soul do represent a different trait as shown in game. Representing yourself through magic could just mean having a white soul, and since the line in that book heavily implies that humans can't know it on the level that monsters can, it only stands to reason that humans being unable to have a white soul is what's meant here.

If the seven that made the barrier DID have white souls, then that would just mean that they were on par with monsters in terms of magic.

To me the Human-Monster dichotomy is that Humans have an abundance of DT, but little magic when compared to Monsters (not no magic). And Monsters have an abundance of Magic, but pitiful levels of DT compared to Humans (not no DT) as the Entry 17 datamined states.

Correct me if I'm wrong though, but wasn't a human absorbing a monster soul stated to have never happened before? Or was it ever stated to even be able to happen?

"The intro doesn't say anything. Only the plaques do. But the plaques were written by eye witnesses, right? Technically, my personal head canon still works, that they were someone else, merely disguised as humans."

That's a headcanon, and there is nothing hinting, implying, or stating that at all in the game.

"The information in it is improved upon. Sure, the events it describes did happen, but did it tell the full story, truthfully?"

If there's nothing else to contradict it, yes it did.