User blog comment:Doge and pupper/11-12D Dimentio debunk/@comment-26374068-20180515022104/@comment-26374068-20180517054915

1. Fair enough. As for the scans you need, here. These three text boxes happen back-to-back. I can also grab the cutscene if you want: As for your second argument... Okay, I want to make a point here. Sunpou does not seem to mean dimension in the way you're implying, Bendy. Look at these sentence examples from the pages we both just linked; they're the use of the word in a sentence. Here's jigen: Now, here's sunpou: Recheck the pages if you need; that's literally the only uses on the page.

Sunpou having a single definition might actually go against your argument here; jigen's use of dimension outright always references mathematical ones. Check the "words related to" section; the majority of the terms are dimensional terms. 1-dimensional, 2-dimensional, two dimensions, multi-dimensional, fourth dimension, etc. Now, check sunpou's; the best you get is "external dimensions," or perhaps "dimensioning." So, to be entirely honest, I got a bit curious why there'd be two terms in Japanese that mean the same thing, and why sunpou's examples only talk about the size of a person and such, and looked into ... well, guess what? These two terms do not  refer to mathematical dimensions.

Dimensioning: External Dimensions: So... we were both wrong. Sunpou doesn't relate to mathematical dimensions at all... not even one bit. Its "dimensions" are the "dimensions" school talks about in terms of measuring the volume and such of an object. JIGEN is the only term between the two that always mentions them in the mathematical sense... You learn something new everyday, right?

2. It's fine... and I apologize for coming off that way. I really don't believe my opinions to be fact; that statement merely came from my own personal frustration when I give people statements and they disregard them.

Apologies... so, you're saying that the name can't prove anything unless the description or use of the item outright supports it, right? Hmm... well, I personally feel this will get nowhere. I'll emphasize my point further down, cause you address it a little better later and I want to counter that point. But I feel that, no matter what either of us say to each other, we can't prove it on this point... But I'll see.

What I don't get is why we have to have the description outright double-confirm what the name already does. That's what your point here seems to imply to me.

Apologies for that bad analogy once again.

Bendy... it's not the same thing. It's really not. Yes, I understand that the description of String Theory Soup doesn't outright say, "The universe is running on String Theory." But what it does say is that there is something keeping secrets about the universe that man was never meant to know, and that drinking this soup--which is named String Theory Soup--will reveal those secrets. What I'm trying to say is... uh, let's try this: you eat the soup, right? We can say you obtained String Theory by drinking String Theory Soup. With that, you're now revealed all the secrets of the universe... the description is saying that drinking what this thing literally is will reveal those secrets to you. As I interpret it, it's saying, "With String Theory, you can know the secrets of the universe. Secrets man was never meant to know." And the rest of the details are consistent with String Theory. String Theory does relate to the universe. String Theory is something man can't know for sure. This artifact, believe it or not, does have more going for it than, say, "Big Bang Attack." The difference between the two is the Big Bang Attack doesn't have a description describing it in a way that is consistent with its name--which String Theory Soup does. And a case special to the soup, you can obtain things relating to its name by drinking it... by, as I want to say, "obtaining" it. I understand consuming and obtaining are different things; but down to the nitty-gritty, they both concern you with receiving something. This is what I'm trying to say; it really does have more going for it.

I can't counter the idea of them using the color scheme, except with the fact that artists' coloring interpretations of the strings heavily varies. Some schemes are colorized like blue, red, green, or even purple. In the end, it's subjective as well; String Theory isn't objectively white and grey.

You were attacking an argument that I never made... that because of the argument I was making, I was saying that saying dimensions always means spatial... that's not something I said or even implied. I do feel that's strawman, but if you don't, well, I can understand why... being accused of logical fallacies ain't always fun, but when you're actually doing them, then... well. Yeah.

As for that last part... please read above. String Theory Soup is different from Steven Universe and Big Bang Attack. It really is. The fact it has a canonical description is the start.

3. But I don't see why it's useless... If a level is made with countless homages to mathematical dimensions, and I'm trying to prove another world is doing just that as well, that supports my point... does it not? I understand verses start with 1-D, 2-D, 3-D, and 4-D. But never do they outright mention or utilize those things to make the level, a level. That's the difference here; while they default that way, verses hardly ever stray into the topic like Lineland did.

When did I say you brought up Dimension D? You were saying that I was saying that dimensions in Super Paper Mario always mean spatial, but never did I say that. On my profiles, I even say Dimension D is a good piece of evidence to say that the terms don't always mean that. Nor was I ever saying they always meant it on here, either. I was literally admitting to that. Now, here's where I would be trapped in a circle: you say I believe that SPM always refers to spatial dimensions with "dimension." If I didn't bring up an example of where I didn't do this, I would be setting myself up... so I brought up the most popularized example to prove to you that your idea of my argument is blatantly wrong. But now, you're saying that I'm bringing up arguments you never made... so I'm at fault, right? So either way, I was wrong? I brought up Dimension D myself, Bendy. To prove that your statement of me saying something I never said was wrong. As for the fault thing... yeah, I'll admit I didn't explain everything through and through. Apologies for that. But that doesn't mean you augment my original "point" to a length I never made it in. Even saying that Lineland is referencing spatial dimensions, I never specified that I was intending for that to mean that dimensions always meant spatial. Where would you get that idea from, anyways? I'm merely stating that a level in this game is a homage to mathematical dimensions, and thus, the designers had that in mind when making the game... but even if I didn't explain that entirely, it shouldn't make it okay to expand my argument to the point where me saying a single level is this suddenly means the entire game is this. That's why I feel you strawmanned.

4. I don't recall ever saying you did. I'm just simply making the point that, should you counter that blog, I will counter back.

You left out the bigger picture... said "secrets" specifically are about the universe; and they're all the secrets of said structure that man was never meant to know. That applies to String Theory.

Everything within its own statement fits under String Theory's description. My points above apply here, as well. I really don't see a single "vague" thing about this other than the fact that the thing's description doesn't outright say, "The universe's cosmology runs on String Theory."

Yes, almost. But we have no real reason to say this is one of those times. One of those times would be if the name literally has nothing to do with the description. But this case is not one of those... the description fits perfectly with what String Theory's whole entire purpose was. Explain the universe; educate man.

I will admit mention of "strings" would help. But honestly, the way it was structured is still fine. As I've already made my points above, I'll just go past this point.

Welp. R.I.P. Sebas.

R.I.P. Sebas x2.

Ah, okay. Then I understand; it just sounded like you were saying the "all existence" thing wasn't reliable and that "all" is unusable in general.

1. I think Nia's actual analogy was more so that, since the strings aren't exactly as they would be in terms of dimensionality, then the fact that Mxy is not completely incomprehensible as a 5-D being would "debunk" his dimensionality just as such details would "debunk" strings. But I don't know for sure... just my interpretation.

2. Hmmm... okay. Then I understand.