Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
1 
Report this post
I do sciences so i didn't think you would use that as an argument.
I do think the way to speak "red" is just a beautiful screenplay accessory to make the reader aware of these sentences.
What would you have answer if "red truth" was replacing by a loud speaking or a special way to speak?
I think youare looking for where you should not look (form rather than substance)
I was taking a shower and was thinking you are asking to prove how 1+1=2 or i²= -1
I can't because it self-explanatory but i can still do a lot of maths.
In science, we often observe consequences of a phenomen (apple falling) then assume something (gravitation). But it isn't because you can't explain gravitation that the apple will not fall
If you do not examine the red with the intent of proving that it can be true, then you are accepting it on faith, just like magic. "apples just fall"
In fact the math "1+1=2" i can explain why, its because humanity is maths creator, and as it creators and users decided that arbitrary symbol 1 denotes a single object/concept and arbitrary symbol 2 denotes a single object/concept plus a single object/concept.
in the case of my example note that a writer is a creator of the world they depict. they can arbitrarily and unilaterally decide things. also if the writer is a fiction writer, ordinarily false statements can be true within the world they create, and if they are a nonfiction writer they can write true statements about past events because they know or have credible sources who do
i was able to come up with a far more beleivable non magical theory of how the red truth can be true than "it just does because it just is", it fits with the white, the red, and the theme of the story.
your request for me to ignore or reimagine the lines establishing the red truth as self evidednt is pointless because it would be denying the red truth. To not examine the red truth before using it, (especially when it makes claims that appear on the surface to be impossible to humans), is circular logic.
just like how scholarly article writers need to extensively check their sources. the reader is expected to examine all sources of information with a critical eye, especially sources that are from sketchy sources that are trying to use the information against you.
Your argument is (at last) equal as mine so you can't deny. Only the author really know what he wanted with red.
All you said for me is "red could be magical"; and?
The meta-world is obviously magical: Battler is dead but playing game, Beato is an illusion as ronove, bernastel etc.... The meta-world use magic but what is the main is that in the real world (scenario) magic wasn't involved
To be honest, a thesis was made to prove 1+1=2 by a mathematician and it's at last one hundred pages to prove it; so i don't think you can explain it (except you are like a great math professor)
If your argument was the one in the last post, you do realize that you can't erase facts in reality (travel time doesn't exist) with a word processer?
Your point is ... crazy. I use the red, the first one who said red speak the truth to say that indeed red is the truth, and you are saying that i deny the red truth???
Which sources? the novel/manga is the only source of itself; since it's a created-world (fiction)
I'm getting quite lost in your explanation that i find, sorry to said, quite confused (a part ot it is because of the language used).
Could you summarize it by saying what is the theory you believe to explain umineko after your big investigation?
if magic does not exist outside the metaverse than anything created by magic either:
does not exist, or
is explainable in human terms, or
magic exists.
"the red does not exist"
"magic exists so the red exists"
"Magic does not exist but the red is explainable by human terms and heres how"
youve chosen "Magic does not exist but the red is either inexplicable or im just refusing to solve the riddle of the red truth"
-----
also you did ask me to a question of "if the red truth said this instead".
-----
If magic exists in the metaverse how do you justify magic existing in a universe within a universe if magic does not exist in the original universe?
EX: ( "REALITY". ("METAVERSE".magic is real) magic is not real )
if you wish to apply the red truth to happenings outside of the metaverse then you must accept all of the red truth or none of it. Further i see no other way to explain the red truth in reality but the way ive described.
----
"If your argument was the one in the last post, you do realize that you can't erase facts in reality (travel time doesn't exist) with a word processer?"
if 100% of the story actually takes place in the metaverse, not just the portion you argue, yes, it can, but unless the red truth said something to make time travel real i would hesitate to argue that as that was never my argument. the theory holds, right?
----
also i hate math but im intelligent enough to understand that math is essentially like language and is based on a system of arbitrary meaning which i pointed out. a proof of 1+1=2 and a paper on how blue means blue is not dissimilar. it is playing within a system that human beings created.
kinda like how in shkantrice theory shanon kanon and beatrice are all title names not real ones, so it would be perfectly legitimate for them to be one body.
The same way you explain Battler is dead and can still speak or play etc... "After life" everything and nothing can happen i guess.
I accept all red truth ofc
How do you count people then?
I think the real question is not really how the games moves happened, but how and why the games were created in the first place. Also the posibility exists that there are several writers. Naturally, auaurora and the reality counterparts help to highlight that possibility.
There are many posibilities:
1. Ange is writing this as therapy, knowing or not knowing the truth, which is why we get some things like the halloween party
2. sayo is real, and the confession of part 7 is real, the incident on rokkenjima was not hypothetical, and sayo survived and has the knowlege of events to write this.
3. battler is a bibliophile, and wrote a murder mystery around his family for each of the 6 years that he was absent from the family meetings.
4. Battler and sayo are real. sayo and battler took turns exchanging the mysteries they wrote.
5. Sayo is real and wrote the first 6, one for every year battler was gone, either sending them to him or not, retired as "beatrice" the writer, and moved on, later writing the next 2 chapters.
A side note, just because there is no red in the first chapter does not mean that it is not a written world as well, my reasoning being that the first story may have been too difficult for the intended reader (or the reader did not come to the conclusion intended) so the next story contained the red truth to narrow the conclusions the reader could draw and push it to more concrete possibilities.
Are a few thoughts that seem to be in line with the text
This game could be simple created by Battler after he became game master and know all the truth
for you 2) we know by red no one survive to rokkenjima
"there are 17 even if you include Erika Furude" is argued to be the correct translation of the passage and is reflected that way on the manga section of the wiki.
"I am the visitor, the 18th human on Rokkenjima!!" this must be true or the red truth is not absolute. This means there are 18 "humans" on rokkenjima unquestionably. I realize now that apparently this statement is compartmentalized from Erika's name. Therefore there IS a visitor who is the "18th human".
also
"The red truth is absolute!! A perfect truth, which no one can overturn no matter how hard they try!!"
i would argue a "perfect truth" as described can only exist in a hypothetical environment such as fiction, or potentially in another environment subordinate to man, math.
______
French[edit]
Etymology[edit]
From Old French bastel + -eur.
Noun[edit]
bateleur m (plural bateleurs)
1. tumbler, juggler; acrobat
2. buffoon
In French Le Bateleur, "the mountebank" or the "sleight of hand artist", is a practitioner of stage magic.
____
considering the nature of japanese pronunciation of borrowed words, these would be the same. If battler is the writer his name or title contained the clue necessary to pinpoint his nature.
Perfect truth; like i exist (myself) is a prefect truth. I think it's the same for erika; she can't say she doesn't exist then she say she exist as someone "extern" to what happen in reality (17 then to 18)
"Does the red ever say that rokkenjima is a real place?"
There is several red truth about rokkenjima; like Beatrice (the human) existed on it there 20 y ago
But Battler title is the endless sorcerer and doesn't have title in the chessboard, unlike Kinzo who was a name and a title/nickname
but what comprises "I" but the sumation of experience or existence ( or soul if you want to go magic) therefore it is not perfect because you cease to be the "I" in the statement. that I is left behind and arguably cannot still exist because the thoughts actions and decisions you make change what comprises "I". either way people are not self evident, because perception requires multiple points of veiw, *litterally in the case of depth perception*
((I think it's the same for erika; she can't say she doesn't exist then she say she exist as someone "extern" to what happen in reality (17 then to 18) ))
not exactly sure what you are saying but my understanding is that you would handle the statement by saying that at least in episode 6 there are 3 distinct universes, subordinated as such ( real(meta(meta) ) )
the problem with that argument is that it would literally allow any red truth be swept under the rug
ex all statements declaring the red truth to be true only apply to a metametaverse, therefore all red can be lies in the metaverse or above.
a person can have more than one title (nickname) etc. Names and titles are very loosly divided in the text and the red truth is almost entirely mum about it except the kanon red
What i mean is that since Erika doesn't exist in the first place (based on the assumption that the first arc is the reality) she can't declare in red that she existed as person on rokkenjima (same way as Kinzo isn't considered anymore a person since he is dead ; only living are counting in the number) so she used a trickword to introduce her as a "visitor", the 18th.
In the same though, you can't say (red or not) that you don't exist; because since you declared it, you exist. In the Arc 3; Beato use red to deny witches (so herself) and almost disappear (if it wasn't a lie).
http://mangafox.me/manga/umineko_no_naku_koro_ni_episode_3_banquet_of_the_golden_witch/v05/c019/36.html
I'm not fond of what you call "universe in a universe etc..."
For me there is : - reality Arc 1 (no magic)
- metaworld (where Battler dead, Beato and other magical appear) magic since everything can occur without alive witness to report it
- chessboard (arc 2-4) which represent a different scenario than arc 1 (no magic)
- An outside world (where come from Ange and Tohya) which is a possibility of what would have happen if Arc 3 was reality. (counterfactual?)
if you can think to yourself "I exist" without using words i agree, otherwise you are reliant on the existence of society (language is a social construct) and others to define the concept of self.
------
*What i mean is that since Erika doesn't exist in the first place (based on the assumption that the first arc is the reality)*
beatrice does not appear in the first arc either, so by that argument the red could all be declared invalid to the same degree
_____
*she can't declare in red that she existed as person on rokkenjima (same way as Kinzo isn't considered anymore a person since he is dead ; only living are counting in the number) so she used a trickword to introduce her as a "visitor", the 18th.*
she CANNOT, but she DID. the only (apparent) ways to reconcile this is
1. to say she was killed between statements, changing the totals
2. to assume that there are "18" and a visitor does exist and that "17" refers to a different thing (naturally a visitor existing for chapters 5 and 6 is reasonable (not sure if that red applys beyond that however), especially 5 since "the visitor" could have been the threatening caller, after all there is nothing preventing "the visitor" from doing so and i imagine that was the point of disassociating "Erika" from "the visitor")(ex Erika= detective; "I" = visitor; by extension the visitor and the detective can be counted as separate unless Erika ever declares "Erika is the Visitor")
----
I'm not fond of what you call "universe in a universe etc..."
For me there is : - reality Arc 1 (no magic)
- metaworld (where Battler dead, Beato and other magical appear) magic since everything can occur without alive witness to report it
- chessboard (arc 2-4) which represent a different scenario than arc 1 (no magic)
- An outside world (where come from Ange and Tohya) which is a possibility of what would have happen if Arc 3 was reality. (counterfactual?)
so (reality (metawold(chessboard( hypothetical outside world) ) ) ) )
Universes that are subordinate can have laws apply to them from universes above, but not the other way around, unfortunately that makes the red not applicable to reality because of the subordination, unless you declare that the metaworld is a higher plane.