Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-31371445-20170222233857/@comment-27136653-20180710141714

"thing is an interpretation of ONE line"

Yep. You got me there.

"They are talking to the Player (the Anomaly) about the world as a world."

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

"A plane of existence, a part of reality, a place that exist and can be destroyed like any other world."

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

"The in-universe idea that the world as they know it is a game is NEVER brought up in any fashion period."

Neither is the opposite.

"The double meta meanings of various phrases and words have no tangibility or concrete standing to the world of the game in-universe because there is nothing to hint or suggest that they're even a possibility."

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

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

"There is nothing to imply that Chara has the 4th Wall Awareness of Deadpool."

>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!

"Out-of-Universe, in our universe, it is a game. But we're trying to explain these things in-universe"

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

"you merging the two"

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?

"But seriously though, trolls are a waste of greymatter and carbon, and should be reeducated on common human decency and comedy."

That's trollist.

"It's like how we accept gravity, or the fact that is if we touch ice we'll feel cold."

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.

"I use the bythe book definition and basic concept. What do you use?"

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.

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?

"They're magical constructs; and I am, again, speaking in-universe wise here."

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.

"could just be an allusion to human's being unable to have a white soul; since SOULS are a tangible thing in Undertale it does make sense that monsters (at that time) would be prideful over that."

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.

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?

"both the intro and books explicity say and imply HUMAN magicians"

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.

"And you can't really say the intro itself isn't canon, since the information in it (at the start of the game) is mentioned and elaborated on in the game itself."

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