Angel Beats plothole? SPOILERS!!!!

Offline

Nov 2014

419

Well... Hard to disagree. I had more or less the same idea about him being Harry, but didn't think about the memory stuff. I thought of It as a "re-wamp" of sorts.

I imagined that after Kanade left, Otonashi became Harry. And waited for Kanade to return. And became obsessed with that. Then becoming an NPC and making a cycle. As the world was like a computer program, he reversed the time that had passed. You could also say he made a circle. And continued living that circle again, again and again.

That's my theory on It, anyway.

Apr 12, 2015 12:19 PM

Offline

Dec 2014

174

There is a cycle in purgatory in my opinion as well!!! Glad you agree, admiral!!!

I was here? Prove it.

May 31, 2015 4:06 AM

Offline

Aug 2014

939

This most definitely is an interesting theory. It's been too long since I watched angel beats for me to remember the details but as far as I remember this makes sence enough to be a pretty valid option.

Jun 8, 2015 6:02 AM

Offline

Dec 2014

174

:D I love this guy!!!

I was here? Prove it.

Jun 9, 2015 6:13 AM

Offline

Aug 2014

939

@Hinayushii
Thanks. I guess?

Also. Since I can't help it.

'I was here? Prove it.'

Now, since you are asking me to do the impossible, I'm going to slightly alter this.
I think that I'm justified to do that since I hold on to the idea that all we can know and prove is our own experience. In my case that is my own experience. I will use the word experience in the broadest sense possible. (You might even replace it with words such as 'life' or 'cognition' in certain contexts.)

Instead of proving that you were here, I'll have to prove you were here in my own experience. In essence, I'm trying to prove something to myself. In order to do that I'll have to try to define what is being said as good as possible.

Now the first thing I'll have to consider is what "I' might refer too. The first thing I might say about it is that it seems to refer to something that is capable of producing certain kinds of experiences that I refer to as a sentence saying 'I was here? Prove it.' The second thing is that, in my experience, things that refer to itself as 'I' have always been either humans or virtual forms of intelligence. This however, is not something I can prove. I can only prove that they seemed to be like that. Therefore I'll only assume the first thing.

'I' refers to something capable of producing certain kinds of experiences I experience. (Note that this could potentially even mean that 'I' refers to me myself.)

The second thing I'll have to prove is 'was'. Now this one is tricky. It is clearly so, in my experience, that 'I' IS here. But how do I know if 'I' WAS here? For that I'll need to assume that everything that happenned still holds something, some sort of reality. Yet the only thing in which that might be possible is my experience. Therefore 'was' seems to refer to everything that I myself refer too as 'previous experience' or 'history' or 'past'. So, out of this, I can say that, in my experience, I 'was' here. Why? Because that is the way that my experiencing of the experiences I have seems to work.

The last one 'here' is simple. There is only one thing 'here' can refer too, which is the experience. Therefore everything I experience automatically is 'here', in the experience.

So 'I' (whatever it is) 'was' (due to the way my experiencing of what I refer to as 'past' seems to work) 'here' (because here, the experience, is all that it can refer too).

Therefore (in my experience): I was here.
Now what else is there besides the my experience? I don't know. I can't know.

Therefore, for as far as it is possible, I have proven everything I can as to whether 'I was here?'. So, for as far as it is possible, I have proven it. Since there is nothing else possible to prove about it, I have proven it to it's fullest.

And I probably talked about that for too long and made you want to take back the words "I love this guy!!!!". Sorry about that.

Jun 10, 2015 12:10 PM

Offline

Dec 2014

174

Wow you tackled that well... except the "all we can know and prove is our own experience" part right at the beginning. If I asked you to prove why gravity occurs, does that mean that just because you experience it (and you obviously do) you should be able to prove it?

Alternately, there are things we can know or prove without even experiencing. This, however, would be merely theoretical insight, yet can't we agree that without theory, we wouldn't be able to always experience new things? Imagine being taught that to swim you need to flap your arms. When the time comes to swim, you know how to handle the situation and swim, despite the possibility that the execution might not be perfect.

Note that initially you referred to only proving what we know or experience an "idea" so I suppose that if your wall of text were to hold any meaning, you should prove that it is not just an idea, but a fact instead. :D still love you!!!

I was here? Prove it.

Jun 10, 2015 1:11 PM

Offline

Nov 2014

419

Here, you were here: http://gyazo.com/c2bbb4a9cfb2440a0a832db83ece556d

Jun 10, 2015 1:32 PM

Offline

Aug 2014

939

"If I asked you to prove why gravity occurs, does that mean that just because you experience it (and you obviously do) you should be able to prove it?"

No. I can only prove that I experience it. Not that it is there. I don't prove gravity, I prove my experiencing of what I refer to as gravity.

"Alternately, there are things we can know or prove without even experiencing."
I am not sure if I fully understand your example, so sorry if my reply may be based on something mistaken. What I think you refer to is that 'theory' seems to hold 'truth'. Such as that the 'theory' to flap your arms while in water will increase the chance that you won't drown in it if it happens to be deep. In that case the theory would 'prove' that 'flapping your arms' will 'make you less likely to drown in deep water'. Something like that right?

Now here's the problem. Let's say I'm told that, every person can fly without the help of any technology, if and only if, he falls out of an airplane on June the first. The most logical way to prove this would be to test this, because I don't think that, no matter how much of a 'theory' I may have behind it, you'll just assume it.

My argument is that this 'weird' case is in that option not any different from the first. How do I prove if flapping my arms helps me swim if I never experienced it? I can't. I can only hear people tell me that it's true and hope that, if I fall in deep water, it is so.

Let's take another theory. Or let's be a bit more amitious. Let's take math.
1+1=2. But WHY? Why not 1+1=4? At one point someone said; 1+1=2 and not 1+1=4. So what kind of truth does math hold? I'd say it's only convention. We agreed on that those kind of calculations are correct and other not. We invented numbers. (It's sorry for Plato and Pythagoras but I'm fairly sure nobody still thinks their are perfect ideas out there or that the world is completely made out of sheer numbers and even if they did they wouldn't be able to prove it).

Theory therefore is, in my experience, just a convention. It is a way that we use within our experience to describe that very same experience. Untill I exprience that flapping my arms in water stops me from drowning I can't prove it. If you want to take this to the extreme, it is even so that seeing 'someone else' do it doesn't give that full proof that it works for 'me'.

Now for the last part. 'Fact' - it's a scary word. What is a 'fact'? If it is something intended to refer to something that is equally valid outside my experience I'd say there is one. That is the 'fact' that I experience. (Not including who or what "I" may be or what 'experience' is in it's broadest sense.) There is 'something' or 'someone' that 'experiences' (though the experience and that something of someone may very well be the same thing.)

So what is a fact? - There is 'something'.
That is the only fact I know and can prove that holds truth outside of my experience. (Though you and me cannot prove each-other, we can prove ourselves this way, so if you are truly there, you too can prove there is 'something' which is you.)

Now here's the fun part. There may be some very weird, objective and very clear world out there that I'm simply not a part of. I may be that single very lone soul in the entire universe that simply doesn't seem to 'get it', or something. I'm not excluding this. So yes, I should've indeed said 'I" instead of 'we' when I told you how I can only prove my own experience. I cannot prove that there is a 'we' and neither can I prove that if there is one the others would work the same as me.

So what meaning do all these walls of text have?
They simply state my experience and how I experience that it works.
Within that experience I saw the question 'I was here? Prove it."
Withint that experience I took on that challange and began writing walls of text.

So what's the meaning of it?
It's what I experience about my own experiencing.
And who knows... Maybe... Just maybe... There is a 'you' out there.
And even more maybe... You could say the same.

But who knows? I for one, don't.

And thanks.

Jun 10, 2015 11:51 PM

#10

Offline

Dec 2014

174

Theory doesn't hold 'truth' but leads us to it. We won't know what we experience without the theory of something similar to it. New experiences cannot be explained without knowing what it is that you're experiencing.

That alone is my opinion, regardless of how inaccurate it may seem, Mr Elvario. Whether or not there is a 'you' out there, I will believe there is. If I don't know something because I haven't experienced it, I will believe it exists. Whether I was here or not is my experience, and by your definition, can I be the only one to prove it?

I was here? Prove it.

Jun 10, 2015 11:52 PM

#11

Offline

Dec 2014

174

TheAnimeAdmiral said:
Here, you were here: http://gyazo.com/c2bbb4a9cfb2440a0a832db83ece556d

Woah what??? :O

I was here? Prove it.

Jun 11, 2015 3:45 AM

#12

Offline

Aug 2014

939

It seems that what you refer to as theory is very similar to what I'm used to refer to as concepts.

The way I think this works is simple. I have something I call 'language' that I use to describe my experience. This language indeed helps me to 'make sense' of what I'm experiencing. It allows me to 'describe' what I'm experiencing, either to other things within my experience or to myself.

But if you say that new experiences cannot be explained without knowing what it is that you're experiencing you won't be able to have a 'starting point'. If everything needs to be explained in terms of other things we experienced it is all just a web of concepts that is based on nothing but the relations between them. I do believe that this is the way I describe my experience. I do believe that this is the way I tell about, think about, try to predict, try to remember, (and so on) my experience. It is all trough the concept (or theory) of language.

Yet that does not mean that language can help us prove things. It may help us explain and understand them, but not prove them. The fact that 'there is something' which I told about earlier can only be understood thanks to the fact that I have at least vague concepts of what it is to 'be' what 'something' is and what language (and that sentence in general) refer too or 'mean'.

So yes, language and with it 'theory' is indeed something that allows us to make sense, explain and even more. But not to prove it to anything outside our own experience. Now here's the link to the next part of what you said.

We believe a lot Without it we would not be able to function well within our own experience. At least, that is how it seems to work for me. (If I refer to 'we', I generally use it under the heavy assumptions and unprovable thesis that others are out there and working in the same was as me.)

So it is indeed of the utmost importance to believe something excists. What would the point of breathing be if you don't believe oxigen, lungs, life, your body, blood streams with the ability to transport oxigen, and what not excists?

Now for the last part. You can be the only one to prove wheter you were there or not, but only to yourself. You cannot prove to me that you were here, you can only prove that you were here within your own experience.

In the same way I have previously proven to myself that you were here in my own experience. However, because (at least I myself) am locked within my own experience, I cannot prove anything outside of it but the fact that there is 'something' (which is "I" or 'me' in the vaguest way possible; the experiencing thing/person/something or the experience itself). Therefore to 'prove' something can hold no meaning outside of the idea that I need to prove it within my own experience. Therefore I felt justified to prove it within my own experience alone.

Jun 12, 2015 3:36 AM

#13

Offline

Dec 2014

174

Then I guess you did a good job!!! :D

I was here? Prove it.

Jun 12, 2015 1:12 PM

#14

Offline

Nov 2014

419

Hinayushii said:

TheAnimeAdmiral said:
Here, you were here: http://gyazo.com/c2bbb4a9cfb2440a0a832db83ece556d

Woah what??? :O

That was my proof.

Jun 12, 2015 1:52 PM

#15

Offline

Dec 2014

174

Damn you two are killing me here....... :'(

I was here? Prove it.

Jun 12, 2015 2:58 PM

#16

Offline

Nov 2014

419

I would never even hurt a fly!
Continues world domination

Jun 13, 2015 11:22 AM

#17

Offline

Dec 2014

174

But I'm not a fly!!!!

I was here? Prove it.

Jun 13, 2015 12:14 PM

#18

Offline

Aug 2014

939

TheAnimeAdmiral said:
I would never even hurt a fly!
Continues world domination

I will hurt flies. As often as is needed.
That is also why I'll be the one to dominate the world whenever I wish too.
I'm just working on finding a way to get immortal first.

Jun 20, 2015 2:07 AM

#19

Offline

Dec 2014

174

Immortality means you will bear the accumulation of your sufferings, as per Code Geass :p

I was here? Prove it.

Jun 25, 2015 7:57 AM

#20

Offline

Aug 2014

939

Hinayushii said:
Immortality means you will bear the accumulation of your sufferings, as per Code Geass :p

True...

Yet I believe it's worth it.

Even though I'm not the Lelouch kind of hero that straight up

Jun 26, 2015 12:01 PM

#21