Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-31371445-20170222233857/@comment-27136653-20181115163751

/THC

"No, that's you adding onto the rules.

'If it was mentioned, alluded to, or abused by someone within the story, it's canon. Otherwise, it's not. '"

That's me sticking to one concrete methodology. I try not to cast such conditions. What proves that it's not canon? Your reasoning is inductive, not deductive, so it's certainly not a proof of anything. It's just your take on the little ABC system I've introduced above.

"See the problem that comes when you restrict yourself to one of two extremes?"

And I do not argue for all-A. I'm all-B. Let's establish that once and for all.

"We know some things are canon, others are not."

And how exactly do we know that?

"but the narration properly transcribes everything they said accurately"

Again, do they?

Also, about the box, what is your head canon again concerning everything else that isn't the soul or the magic cast against the soul? Such as, the body. What happens to Frisk's body? Where is it? If they for example move the soul with their body, why is the interface only 2-dimensional?

"Now do you get it? I've taken the original source material, not changed it a BIT, yet reached a nice conclusion that states the simulation is not canon."

So did I. Toby never stated whether the things happening on screen also look the same in-canon, or whether the screen is just a projection of something much more complex and more comparable to our reality. So, I took the latter, and made no further changes since. I'm technically not changing anything at all. I'm just explaining everything from a new point of view, you could say. One which we can be sure about isn't a simulation.