Endless Mike
Sqirrel Girl fanboy
Originally posted by Astner
Straw man argument.
Don't just throw out the names of fallacies when you get proven wrong about something. I already explained what I meant to you twice. How am I misinterpreting your argument?
Also, I see you finally realized your error about why I mentioned the English dub, but instead of conceding on that point and admitting your mistake, you just didn't respond to it, hoping I wouldn't notice. 🙄
In Einstein's theory of general relativity, place the observer in the singularity of a black hole and then let a unit of time of choice (Planck time, second, minute, hour, etc.) pass for the observer then remove the observer from the singularity and voila.
There's the rub, dude. Black holes decay eventually due to Hawking Radiation. Therefore, the black hole would have evaporated before infinite time could pass.
Of course, this requires that the universe and the black hole to remain intact during the observer's visit. For the reverse effect you'd have to use a more theoretical model such as white hole.
No evidence they exist.
There are of course easier alternatives, moving at c for one.
That would make you frozen in time, so no time would pass for you at all.
For the third time:
That's not an answer. Of course it does not defy logic for things to be infinite, but to perform infinite calculations and finish, it is illogical. It's like the joke "Chuck Norris counted to infinity twice".
Given what the author explained what he meant with omnipotence since it's an ambiguous (has more than one meaning) term.
Does it make you feel smart to include the definitions of simple words with your posts?
Given the lack of clarification it isn't incorrect as you're implying. It doesn't accord with your interpretation but that's it.
So you arbitrarily define standards to which examples must adhere to. That's called "moving the goalposts".
Which means that we "almost never" can truly know its power considering the fact that omnipotence can range from a politician's influence to the illogical omnipotence pondered by philosophers.
Somehow I don't think that when Odin is blowing up galaxies and shaking the universe, the narrator is using the word to refer to his political power.
You forgot the step where you said that unless we know the extent of a character's power we should wait until those extents are known before involving said character in threads. In which I pointed out your hypocrisy and double standards.
Now this is a strawman. I never said such a thing. Obviously, we can't use a character if there is too much about them that is unknown, but if we have a general idea of what they can do, we can use it.
No, unless we know anything about them any given argument would be a slipperly slope fallacy. Unless to a reasonable extent known, they shouldn't be debated at all.
Yet you were claiming that Madara could be considered omnipotent when we didn't know anything about him.
No, I said that Madara might have been powerful enough to tip the scales against--for the sake of argument--say Bleach. It might be a bad example since "that ship has sailed" and we know Madara's capabilities better now than then. But it's still a valid point.
It's an irrelevant point. If we were in a discussion about British history, you could say that the distance between the earth and the sun is ~ 150 million km. That would be a "valid point", but it would have absolutely no bearing on the current topic of discussion.
Why? There's no reason to doubt the author unless it to some degree contradicts the source material, and when it does it has to be dealt with on a case-to-case basis. Just as contradictory feats.
You're assuming that authors don't regularly engage in hyperbole, aka "Haku is lightspeed, Itachi's water bullets are lightspeed, Jiraiya is a mountain buster, etc." all found in the Naruto databook. If you want to believe that crap, fine, but it's not sufficient evidence as it is not properly reflected in the source material.
The author transcends the story, the author may well establish that a character can draw a square triangle but he wouldn't be able to draw it on paper and credit it to the character.
Author says "character can ignore logic".
Author then says "character can do X"
Statement A makes statement B unreliable, as it is a formulation of logic.
It's like asking whether "This sentence is false" is a true or false sentence.
Furthermore whether or not a character is "omnipotent within the context of the story." is irrelevant. Because the vast majority of the battles aren't within the "context of the story" to begin with.
It's relevant in the original context I mentioned it.
I know that some people are open to changes, sadly you're not one of them. You'll have to excuse me for pointing out that you were wrong.
Not wrong, I merely changed my point of view. As it would be pretty much impossible to prove those claims to be right or wrong on any convincing level, as the notion of illogical omnipotence is too abstract.
Now, that was hardly the point of the addressment, now was it?
Simply clarifying my current stance on the issue, as you were incorrect about it.
No, it only serves to prove that one (or some) can't be objectively analyzed. By the same means, the panel previously posted proves that some can be used for objective analysis. Justifying my stance of that "some"--in fact--can be analyzed objectively.
Which is pointless, as if you admit the existence of gag scenes that are not subject to objective analysis, then you cannot prove the one your argument is based on is without further evidence, which you do not have.
And with "multiverse" you refer to the 11 dimensional (universal in context of the story) cluster as opposed to Marvel's infinite dimensional multiverse.
No, I mean the at least 11 core universes, each one far more expansive and complex than the previous to the point where a being from one wouldn't even be able to conceive of the next, as well as a great many other universes and dimensions, such as Washu's jar, the "small universes" referred to by the scientists in GXP, the 2 universes in Dual, the universe in Isekai no Seikishi Monogatari, etc.
*snip*
Of course you avoid to point this out in hopes of that people would associate its scale to Marvel's.
No I don't. Marvel has an Omniverse, that's the biggest "verse" I've ever seen in fiction.
I also love how the scan you posted disproved one of your most common arguments, that the dimensions in Tenchiverse's hyperdimension are not real universes. The scan even says that universes are commonly referred to as dimensions. That makes you a hypocrite.
I suspected you'd wriggle yourself out of that one, but fair enough. Take Mokona from Magic Knights of Rayearth, Cardcaptor Sakura, List of Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle, etc. instead.
I'm not familiar with that series.
