Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Then it should be simple to prove you're correct. Easter eggs and callbacks are what you're hinging your argument on, but at the moment it's little more than faith and belief, with zero proof.But if that's how you want to leave it, sure.
Originally posted by Philosophía
The discussion I want to have in regards to the feat is the scale of it, and what we can discern it to be. If you want, I can PM you the comic to refresh your memory. We should put feats on the list that are actual feats [outliers as they are], not non-worthy feats.
Thanks, but finding the comic myself shouldn't be too hard. I'm going to be offline for the next few hours, though.
Originally posted by Astner
Yeah...I don't see any reason to defend my position against your baseless claim of there being "two monkeys."
But I'm not asking you to disprove anything I say.
I'm asking you to prove yours.
Otherwise, it's just faith and belief. As a man of science and numbers, surely you see the irony here? Your entire argument hinges on it being the same monkey - so prove it.
Plus, this is comics, where we have an alien jesus who broke the bonds of infinity...by accelerating himself from a finite number start-point in a few panels
Again, I'm completely in agreement that the word "infinite" in these scenes probably doesn't hold as much credit as in real life. Same like one million decibels or something.
However, I think Morrison's intention when he used "infinite" in that scene is literally. As Galan pointed out there are many instinctive clues indicate such. Just infinity often is shit in fiction due to most writers don't take a look at the implication of such word
Originally posted by carver9
The panel literally say one monkey, ONE, if it was 2 monkeys, why would they only reference just one single monkey?
Not the one in Final Crisis. Merryman merely says 'a' monkey wrote it.
Nowhere does it say they're the same monkey. If there exists proof it's the same monkey, please post it.
If you're going to try and white knight, carver, be prepared to back it up.
Originally posted by Astner
You're treading the same territory as Darksaint here. To recap, he came up with the "there had to be two monkeys" explanation just to avoid having to accept that the expression was figurative.This is the reason we have Ockham's razor.
Originally posted by Astner
You're ignoring the nature of the problem. We're not talking about any set, we're talking about an ordered set.You're taking page 1 and page 2 and saying "these are pages 0 and ∞ now," and then you renumber the remaining pages 1, 2, 3, .... This you're not allowed to do.
The pages have to be arranged in the order they were written. You don't get to choose which page is the final page, the final page is going to be the final page the monkey wrote: and if there were infinite pages it's not going to exist.
My construction for the infinite book easily allows for any page to be placed in the final page slot.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Not the one in Final Crisis. Merryman merely says 'a' monkey wrote it.Nowhere does it say they're the same monkey. If there exists proof it's the same monkey, please post it.
If you're going to try and white knight, carver, be prepared to back it up.
A monkey is singular, right? Wouldn't he phrase that kinda different if it was more than one? If one monkey started it and another monkey finished it, don't think he would've said "a" monkey during that statement.
Originally posted by carver9
A monkey is singular, right? Wouldn't he phrase that kinda different if it was more than one? If one monkey started it and another monkey finished it, don't think he would've said "a" monkey during that statement.
Originally posted by AstnerIt seems as if you are now arguing to win and not to ascertain the truth.
You're at the same page as abhi here.Infinity can be used figuratively and it can be used literally, and a repeated figurative use of a term doesn't translate into a literal use of it.
We determine whether a use is figurative or literal by the context. If "infinity" refers to the number of stars in the galaxy, we take it as being figurative. If it refers to a value greater than any finite value then we take it as being literal.
When it comes to the Infinite Earths, has there been any cases for a literal use? Probably. And those cases would have to be weighted against the cases for figurative uses to determine which interpretation is appropriate.
But that's not relevant when it comes to the Infinite Book because there are no contexts for literal interpertations of infinity as it pertains to it in the stories we're discussing.
It's extremely problematic to have to resort to explanations like pages of variable widths or parameterized spaces to justify an argument when there are no implications of their implementation.
Sure, it's easy to prove things if you don't have to commit to anything. But at that point you might as well embrace a contradiction and use it to prove anything via ex falso quodlibet.
Then you're not using infinity. You're simply using an unspecified element which you conventiently decided to call "infinity."
That resolved, the problem is that your composition map isn't linear, which is something that you can require by saying that the pages have to be in order. So you can't select "one random page" and requrie it to be the final page.
It was meant literally because EVERYONE who read the comic thought it was meant literally. Basically writer's intent is clear. If the writer meant for them to not be infinite then he would have clarified to the reader so that the reader doesn't get misinformed.
So your argument is that there wasn't an infinite number of universes because the writer was using figurative language. Well that doesn't hold because his intent was that they were infinite in number.
Lastly, you can't discredit showings because of the sole reason "they violate science". If that was the case then ALL feats are discredited. That's the slippery slope Galan was talking about. Rather we can ignore the inconsistences with science in favor of writers intent.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
So if I say 'a KMC poster wrote that Superman is the best', that automatically means you, right?
Don't think this is how comics work my friend, lmmfao. Now if you said "A person put KMC together from the bottom up", I would think you're talking about a single person, not more than one.
Originally posted by carver9
Don't think this is how comics work my friend, lmmfao. Now if you said "A person put KMC together from the bottom up", I would think you're talking about a single person, not more than one.
Yes, a single person, true. But is that person the same person as you? No! It's a different person.
I am not arguing that multiple monkeys wrote the infinite book, lol. Don't get it twisted. I am arguing a single monkey did it.
But where Astner and I differ, is that he's arguing the monkey that wrote it, is the same monkey that died back in the 80s. I am arguing it's a completely different monkey altogether - still singular, however.
If I said A comic book character drives the Batmobile....does that mean it's WW? No, I am obviously talking about Batman. A completely different character. Obviously, a single character, but distinct from Superman or WW etc.
I don't think you understood what we were debating.
If you said A writer wrote the Mary Poppins book, I would think one person wrote the Mary Poppins book. If you said a monkey wrote a book of infinite pages, I would think A monkey wrote the book of infinite pages, (one monkey, one writer). The context you're using about the batmobile doesn't fly with what's being discussed here. If you said a mechanic fixed the batmobile, you're talking about a single mechanic working on the batmobile, not 2 or 3.