Originally posted by Astner
[B]Neither do I, in fact I tend to explain the fallacy rather than pointing it out. But when repeated time after time, eventually rather than repeating it once more I'll point it out.
No you don't. When you can't think of a response, all you do is just give the name of a fallacy and link it to wikipedia, and most of the time it's not even applicable.
Because the location: "in their minds" has nothing to do with the time elapsed.
Which was not my point. I pointed out that it said that in the original in case you were going to try to use the English dub to contradict what I was saying.
Lets backtrack:Your argument is that the Chousin was able to preform a infinite amount of calculations in a finite amount of time.
Here you're implying that the time wasn't infinite and claim that it was mentioned in the English dubbing and not the original.
I dropped the argument because it seemed as if you had entangled yourself in lies and kept on trying to twist from that argument into something that could be considered a rational thought. I didn't drop it in pity or mercy but rather because I thought it seemed transparent enough for even the simplest of minds to see through. But if you insist, please explain what you meant in the quotation above, because judging by your attitude what you mean can't have been what you wrote.
Let me explain it yet again, since you keep failing to comprehend such a simple line of reasoning:
I said that they performed infinite calculations. I anticipated that you would use the line in the English dub where Washu said they weren't really infinite to try to contest my point, so I preemptively pointed out that that line was changed from the original Japanese. You misinterpreted that as thinking I was using the lines in the English dub to support my point, and I pointed out that was wrong. Got it?
I'm aware, I pointed it out
Then you shot down your own argument.
There's theoretical evidence, for what it's worth.
They blatantly violate thermodynamics.
Wrong. Motion is relative. If a character moves at c, it will for the character seem as the universe is moving by at c hence his surrounding will seem to have stopped in time, vice-versa. It's called twin paradox and it depends on which system, the environment's or the character's that adjusts to the other's initial frame of reference. If the character stops moving, then he'd be the one who've stopped in time. If the environment speeds-up then to the character's speed, then it will be what have stopped in time.
First of all, stop peppering your replies with wikipedia links. It's probably one of the reasons why you exceeded the character limit. If I find any terms in your posts that I am not familiar with (which has yet to happen), I am perfectly capable of looking them up for myself.
Second of all, that does not provide the means to perform infinite calculations, because even if time is stopped from your perspective, you would still have to spend an infinite amount of time calculating and would never finish. If I could use a permanent ZA WARUDO, I still wouldn't be able to count to infinity.
Of course we're dealing with fiction and there might be natural ways of dealing with these problems even if there wasn't an explanation (which there clearly is).
Ways that defy logic.
It's not illogical. If the universe is infinite, and expanding, which is two out of three current models it became infinite at the instance of the Big bang.If you count with a hyperreal number rate you'd reach infinity as soon as you've started counting. If you're given a infinite amount of time you'll never reach a maximum number at any point in time but at the same time you'll never reach a end in time, hence infinity.
*snip*
I'm talking about counting integers. Furthermore, if you are given infinite time to count, and don't ever have to stop for any reason, your count can be said to be infinite, but my point is that you can't actually finish that count.
Of course, that's only if you decide to take "infinity" as defined in a mathematical sense rather than one of the literal definitions. Such as:"2 : an indefinitely great number or amount <an infinity of stars>"
Sources: #2 in merriam-webster, #3 in the free dictionary.
Oh, here we go. You like quoting fallacies? Here's one for you:
The Chousein speak of infinite space, infinite time, and infinite power. You already pretty much admitted that they could let an object with mass travel at c, so that's infinite energy right there. Assuming they just meant "a large amount" is simply dishonest.
I rather define what I mean when seeming vague then repeat myself.
There's nothing ambiguous about the the use of the word ambiguous in that context, if you'll excuse the joke.
Incorrect. I'm not making an argument, but rather explain the possibilities you must adhere to. In fact there is no need for me to make an argument because by saying (paraphrasing) "The author is wrong because he said that Odin was omnipotent when he's clearly not." you're committing the equivocation fallacy.
Heh, what a coincidence, I called you out on that same one before I even read this paragraph. Proves your hypocrisy even more. However, we are straying from the real issue here. If an author says a character is omnipotent, and explains that he means the non-political definition of omnipotence (which is pretty silly because a lot of claimed "omnipotent" characters don't have any political power at all), you claim it's enough to prove it, even when contradicted by the source material.
And neither was the rhetorical example posted for that purpose, but rather to prove that there's more than one meaning to the word omnipotence. If you have good reasons to believe that the author's intention was that Odin could accomplish any feat he desired without hindrance I'd like you to share those reasons.
Because the first definition refers to being all-powerful, and the second refers to having great political power, and the second was obviously not intended.
You did:
Hey kids, it's time for Out-of-Context Theater, with your host, Astner! 🙄
What I meant was that if we really don't know anything about a character's powers or the extent thereof, then using them in a vs. debate is pointless. This doesn't mean that we can't use them unless we know absolutely everything about them, but if there are too many unknowns, we don't. You can see this policy is upheld by the OBD, the forum you apparently hate so much. We don't use characters like Gold Roger, Rikudou Sennin, etc. in vs. threads because there is not enough info on their combat capabilities. Until the Whitebeard war arc, it was considered bad form to use Mihawk in a thread since he only had one small showing.
Even when "general ideas" are insufficient, e.g. in close calls?
If we have character A, who has a feat of city block busting and unknown speed, and character B, who has a similar feat and also unknown speed, and all other stats are equal or unknown, then we just admit we don't know who would win. It's not such a debilitating problem for the system if it can't always come up with an answer. Situations where there's not enough information to determine a reasonable answer happen all the time in science and real life, after all.
No, I claimed that he could possibly be powerful enough to tip the scales against other Shonen titles.
I may have misinterpreted why you brought him up in the first place, but if I did, you can hardly blame me. After all, the discussion is about omnipotence in fiction, which stemmed from a topic of who the most powerful anime character is. At no point in this debate have I ever talked about or showed interest in the power of Madara against other shounen titles like Bleach or One Piece. So, naturally, I assumed you were claiming he might be omnipotent since we didn't know his powers. To avoid misunderstandings like this in the future, perhaps you should stay on topic, hmm?
And I assume that you're the one to decide whether or not you find it to properly reflect the source material? Regardless I've come across attempt of explaining these "hyperbole" statements, some of which I find plausible explanations.
Awkwardly shoehorning statements to fit doesn't make them plausible. Now, I admit there is room for differing interpretations here, but when I see an author make a claim about his fiction that is not backed up by the source material (for example, "Bob is omnipotent despite the fact that no power in the series has been shown or implied to be greater than a citybuster"😉 I like to see some more solid proof. If the author wants to lend credence to his claim, he can easily write things like Bob warping reality or creating universes. But if Bob doesn't actually do anything and the overall power level of the series is not shown to be anywhere close to that level, I take it with a good degree of skepticism.