His name is Arbiter Saslamel. He's not a psychopomp, he shows up whenever a magical contract is in dispute / about to be broken. He speaks in runes because he's one of the oldest beings or something and too stubborn to learn modern speech.
we really don't know that much about them. that big ol face is arbiter saslamel. he's so ancient and only speaks the old tongue so interpretor ghost has to be nearby to translate. they rule over status changes and cosmic contracts
Kat sees the guy in his full majesty and not as a cardboard prop, so he's like a psychopomp in that way. He stops time when he shows up. Seems to be on the same rung in the cosmic bureaucracy as the Norns.
we really don't know that much about them. that big ol face is arbiter saslamel. he's so ancient and only speaks the old tongue so interpretor ghost has to be nearby to translate. they rule over status changes and cosmic contracts
Kat sees the guy in his full majesty and not as a cardboard prop, so he's like a psychopomp in that way. He stops time when he shows up. Seems to be on the same rung in the cosmic bureaucracy as the Norns.
Sorr anon but he got you good. You're the autistic homosexual obsessed with decades-old forgettable trivia from this shitty comic the rest of us chads don't waste brain space on anymore.
No, it didn't. I suppose if you were to say god made the humans and god is made by the ether, that IS true, but that would not disprove that the world isn't a dead thing.
Like I said, it doesn't disprove that the world ISN'T a dead thing.
5 months ago
Anonymous
A world without life is dead, anon.
Ether isn't life on its own.
5 months ago
Anonymous
But humans created the ether. Two contradictory statements can be true at once.
5 months ago
Anonymous
They both can and cannot. That is what a paradox is.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Yes. That's why I specified that two contradictory statements can be true at once. Humans did create the ether and god created humans.
So what disproves that humans created the ether?
5 months ago
Anonymous
...nothing? Nor did I claim so.
The world contains nothing, but from that nothing, something is created, which in turn created the nothing that created it.
It's a paradox, anon.
5 months ago
Anonymous
In that case, that's a very uninsightful statement from old Saslamel! Pretty pointless, even.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Which is exactly Tom's forte, hence why I believe my headcanon to be correct.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Fair enough!
5 months ago
Anonymous
There is no contradiction moron.
A created B
B created A
Where is the mutual exclusion. >but I cannot reconcile casuality with both statements being true
Then causality or your warrants are wrong. There's nothing inherently contradictory to the statements, plus we know casuality is an illusion in GKC
5 months ago
Anonymous
Read my post again, anon.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Sorry brah, I'm rundown as frick. I j-just wanted to h-have fun and shitfling
5 months ago
Anonymous
That's alright, that's a very valid reason for your hasty response!
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Where is the mutual exclusion.
If A created B, there was a time when A existed and B did not. If B created A, there was a time when B existed and A did not. Both are possible if A and B stop existing and are recreated by the other, but if the existence of A and B is persistent once they've been created, only one of those statements can be true in a particular setting. If A and B exist in a causal loop, neither A nor B are responsible for the existence of that loop, which would be some other cause C.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>there was a time when A existed and B did not
No, not really. That's your warrant. >if A and B exist in a loop
That is not the only possible solution but even if it were there is no C. IF loops existed then there's no reason there could not be inherent loops. In fact, there almost certainly would be. Unless C is the Prime Cause I think you might be a moron.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>No, not really.
The act of creation involves bringing something into being, which was not in being previously. So yes, if A created B, A would NECESSARILY have been in existence at some time when B was not. And vice versa.
>That is not the only possible solution
I didn't say there wasn't, but it's the obvious one. If you have an alternative, let's hear it.
>IF loops existed then there's no reason there could not be inherent loops.
In such a case, neither A nor B would be the cause of the other, as both would have always existed. And in any causal loop, the contents of the loop can't account for the existence of the loop in the first place. If there is a reason for the loop's existence, it's some other causal factor, designated "C" to keep with the lattering.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>And in any causal loop, the contents of the loop can't account for the existence of the loop in the first place
Based on what, moron. If loops exist then they can exist inherently. There is no impetus on the environment to create a loop. It is the same as requiring a thirdparty to have made the environment to begin with.
IF time exists in a non-linear fashion THEN time is non-linear. That statement is true regardless of whether humans become capable of altering it. There is absolutely no basis to suggest that temporal 'whorls' don't exist in places by the same means as standard causal flow. If causal temporal flow is self-evident and inherent then so to could/would atemporal causality.
tl;dr >if there's a reason for the loops existence
It's the same reason for the flows existence. Care to justify time itself for me champ.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Based on what
A causal loop does not contain the answer to the question of why the loop exists. It's self-contained and self-referential, but that's not the same thing as accounting for its own existence. This is elementary analysis here. Consider what an answer to the question, "why does this causal loop exist?" would entail. Denying that the question has an answer is not the same thing as answering it.
>There is no impetus on the environment to create a loop.
There is no impetus on ANYTHING to create the loop. They're usually put in stories by authorial fiat, which serves as the external cause C, but that's not an in-universe explanation for their existence. If there is such an explanation, it's not something within the causal loop.
>IF time exists in a non-linear fashion THEN time is non-linear.
A tautology. But causal loops are linear. Cause follows effect as normal. Things just run in a circle. Actually adding proper additional dimensions to time makes events completely unpredictable from any given vantage point.
>There is absolutely no basis to suggest that temporal 'whorls' don't exist in places by the same means as standard causal flow
This is unrelated to whether the cause of the loop is something within the loop itself.
>Care to justify time itself for me champ.
The increase in entropy as causal effects propagate away from set boundary conditions of a higher dimensional timeless manifold that constitutes the entire history of the universe.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>A causal loop does not contain the answer to the question of why the loop exists
Based on what
5 months ago
Anonymous
Do you not understand the question?
5 months ago
Anonymous
I think you genuinely lack the capacity of abstract thought. Sorry to break it to you
>entire history of the universe
Sounds pretty self referential to me wiener sucker. Any temporal activity is inherently self referential. There will always be a "here" and a "there". Unless you are willing to entertain a C for the universe itself and are aware that doing so is recursive like a kid asking "why" no matter what you tell them, then sure. C. The same C made the loop made the universe.
Because if time can loop then it will always have had the properties that allow such a form to exist and, supposing it does, there is no reason to presuppose such a formation requires temporal causality to occur. In fact, because it is an atemporal state it would be unlikely for temporal causality to affect it at all.
If at some stage causality loops it will have always looped unless you believe the flow of time itself is in constant flux in which case your manifold can suck my balls.
>a tautology
Yes Black person, like saying time exists because time exists. >well it's the entro-
1)a theory
2)why does entropy exist >I'm not sure bu-
Reality exists in the form it does because reality exists in the form it does. Even if some higher order interaction created this specific iteration of reality there would likewise be forces and laws applied to that higher order mechanic/force and it too would have some manner of causality be it temporal or otherwise - else it would be unable to interact with anything or produce anything.
So if you insist something must have created a loop in time then I insist something necessitated time and entropy.
The reality is, you sperg, that inherent universal laws are simply that. Inherent. The only circumstance in which a loop MUST have been a result of causality is in the EXTREMELY unlikely, or perhaps impossible, hypothetical that we alter the very foundation of reality to do so - and if we had all bets are off and conventional understandings discarded
5 months ago
Anonymous
You are one pompous sack of shit. The answer is a tautology, or failing that, if we want to be a reductive little wienersucker, the reason they feud is the Prime Cause. You genuinely have issues with abstract thought, which makes me laugh a little given you seem to be invested in high-minded concepts like theoretical physics. Were we discussing temporal interactions you would not see the issue - but allow me to generously illustrate it for you.
The Hatfields may have started an altercation which developed into the feud and that may be the surface level answer but the question still remains how and why did the Hatifields start the altercation and on from there why such a cause created the effect that prompted the Hatfield's to start the altercation.
Inevitably the answer becomes a tuatology. There is no greater cause or reason than the Prime Cause. It happened because it happened. Whether you choose to see the Prime Cause as the beginning of this universe and the founding of the fundamental laws or if you wish to refer to an unknown point beyond our capacity where whatever created us was created and so on and on ad infinitum.
While the mechanics through which the Prime Cause is expressed allow us to model the coming events in a linear temporal state, that is all they do. They are no more justified in their existence than a loop would be. Unless the very fabric or reality is a mobius strip or Oroborous then it is impossible to say otherwise. An origin can never be defined because to begin there must be laws, mechanics and force by which a beginning can be expressed. A point of self reference.
but muscle parley WHEN?
5 months ago
Anonymous
At this pace? Next chapter or longer. What is she going to contribute to Kat's ascension and Zimdawg's possible fall?
5 months ago
Anonymous
This is a very good question.
I want to see her oil her muscles.
5 months ago
Anonymous
I need this so much...
5 months ago
Anonymous
But anon, you fail to see the obvious. Much more important and relevant is to reach a definitive consensus about the intricacies of causality loops and what that means to the broader plane of existence.
So we must post away about that instead of posting about Parkey oiling up her musles. Please understand.
5 months ago
Anonymous
34 chapters ago.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Any temporal activity is inherently self referential.
Not in the sense of a causal loop.
>then sure. C
Concession taken.
>Unless you are willing to entertain a C for the universe itself
Yes, obviously. Causality itself can't account for its own existence for the same reason. This has been known for more than 2300 years now.
>In fact, because it is an atemporal state it would be unlikely for temporal causality to affect it at all.
And therefore, a causal loop can't account for its own existence.
>like saying time exists because time exists.
You're the one who said it as if it were adding something to the conversation.
>1)a theory
Fundamental physical processes work the same running time forward and backwards. The "arrow of time" comes from entropy increasing in one direction and not the other, which results in things like thermal gradients evening out of their own accord rather than the reverse.
>2)why does entropy exist
Because the space of possible states is much larger than the number of components in a system. Causal propagation away from some fixed boundary condition tends to have the system component states spread out away from the initial state to some random derived possible state.
>inherent universal laws are simply that. Inherent.
X being an inherent property of Y does not constitute a get-out-of-causality-free card. Why is there Y instead of Z?
5 months ago
Anonymous
>And therefore, a causal loop can't account for its own existence.
Nothing can you fricking idiot. That's the entire fricking point. See what I mean about abstract thought you rote learnt parrot.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Nothing can you fricking idiot.
Consider a setting where humans made the ether. At some point, there were humans around and no ether, and then humans made the ether, so now both are around. Why is the ether there? Because humans made it. Bam. That's what "accounting for the existence of something" involves in the sense that causal loops don't answer.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Maybe this will help if the time element is tripping you up. Consider this:
The Hatfields fight the McCoys because the McCoys attacked the Hatfields.
The McCoys fight the Hatfields because the Hatfields attacked the McCoys.
A self-contained causal loop which explains the ongoing feud. But why did they start feuding in the first place? The answer is not to be found in that loop.
5 months ago
Anonymous
You are one pompous sack of shit. The answer is a tautology, or failing that, if we want to be a reductive little wienersucker, the reason they feud is the Prime Cause. You genuinely have issues with abstract thought, which makes me laugh a little given you seem to be invested in high-minded concepts like theoretical physics. Were we discussing temporal interactions you would not see the issue - but allow me to generously illustrate it for you.
The Hatfields may have started an altercation which developed into the feud and that may be the surface level answer but the question still remains how and why did the Hatifields start the altercation and on from there why such a cause created the effect that prompted the Hatfield's to start the altercation.
Inevitably the answer becomes a tuatology. There is no greater cause or reason than the Prime Cause. It happened because it happened. Whether you choose to see the Prime Cause as the beginning of this universe and the founding of the fundamental laws or if you wish to refer to an unknown point beyond our capacity where whatever created us was created and so on and on ad infinitum.
While the mechanics through which the Prime Cause is expressed allow us to model the coming events in a linear temporal state, that is all they do. They are no more justified in their existence than a loop would be. Unless the very fabric or reality is a mobius strip or Oroborous then it is impossible to say otherwise. An origin can never be defined because to begin there must be laws, mechanics and force by which a beginning can be expressed. A point of self reference.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>The answer is a tautology
No, it isn't. Do you know what a tautology is?
>the reason they feud is the Prime Cause.
No, the reason they feud is assorted misbehavior. It's an actual thing that happened:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield%E2%80%93McCoy_feud
The feud was self-perpetuating once it got going, but feuds have some external cause that gets them going. Pointing at the causal loop of the feud does not account for why it's there in the first place
>Unless the very fabric or reality is a mobius strip or Oroborous
In which case we're back to a causal loop that doesn't account for its own existence. The non-universality of causality is unavoidable in ultimate origin scenarios, and those can usually be ignored as unknowable. But it's relevant RIGHT HERE AND NOW because the ultimate origin of a causal loop is the specific topic of discussion. Just saying that A and B caused each other and that's that doesn't actually answer the question of why either is there, and the simplicity of the causal loop brings that to immediate attention here. There's no vast causal web stretching to infinity and eternity, it's just A and B in a tight loop.
It's going alright-ish. I'm gonna be in a little bit of financial trouble for a little bit so I'll have to open commissions for at least a while, which will additionally cut into my time spent on working on it, so that sucks, but I'll be fine and as I've said many times, part 1 will definitely be finished at some point.
Well it's certainly one that is static. Like looking at a painting. Everything has been decided form the moment of its inception. Well everything outside you adding a brush stroke if the whim took you. From that perspective it truly is dead, the hopes, dreams and fears of its inhabitants no more immaterial and artificial than the expressions of a portrait.
That's my general line of thinking so far, yeah, but it has some kind of wonky implications.
If the soul is a person's essential being, and is an etheric entity, then why is the world dead?
The thing about a world of causality is that ANY single event, anything at all, which occurs without following the laws of causality means that everything, EVERYTHING from that point on is moot. Which I guess we have been seeing in the story from when Kat did her time loop nonsense, but then if causality is why the world is dead, and causality is now broken, then that means the world is alive again according to this.
Maybe its the opposite, though? Maybe the Court fricked up SUPER FRICKING HARD with their prognostication device and pulled the classic reverse causality bullshit where by attempting to look at the future, they locked the future into place and removed free will from everybody retroactively by collapsing the wave function and having that propagate backwards like the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and that is why the world is dead?
Still doesn't truck with Kat breaking the thing though. I don't think there is enough information to speculate accurately yet, honestly, so I'm just throwing ideas at the wall.
Annie is still alive because of Kat, which ultimately means that the source of the predictions being broken is Kat, even if Annie is the method by which they are broken.
It's just wibbly wobbly timey wimey bullshit though, so I'm not sure the distinction even matters or if it just creates an oroboros.
My point is that that is a theory that hasn't been confirmed at all. For all we know it could have been Coyote who messed Annie up, or Jeanne, or Annie's future work as Kat's psychopomp. Any number of potential reasons.
Just because a theory is the most likely theory doesn't make it fact.
The distinction is important because it points to Kat being the Chosen One rather than Annie all along or whatever. Kat is the true endgame of the Court’s endeavor for man to become God. Annie is just the cute ordinary half-fire elemental that Kat likes.
Gee, I sure do love when so many of the threads end up some autistic arguments about something ultimately not related to the comic, like quantum phisics, robotics, causality or transhumanism! Oh boy!
You know, Annie's secret crush, super scientist, lesbian lover of spanish cooch, soon to become a metal deity, destroyer of the once great A.I. civilization.
You know, Kate.
Why are people arguing about paradoxes in a comic that has time travel, multiple timelines, and magical gods that were retroactively made to exist in the past?
latex would be about how it smoothes the features out, making the person more of a doll or a mannequin, so you can conflate it to something like a depersonalization fetish
leather has a bit more weight and shape to it, so it's more about them *being* something, like a harness for a ponygirl or a collar for a slave
obviously you can mix and match too to get both
What? That doesn't makes sense. The one piece is real meme involves Whitebeard shouting the phrase.
The only people close enough to that level of musles are Parley and Eglamore.
We would choose Parley, because waifus.
I've been trying to find that chapter, but I somehow skipped past it multiple times. Anyway found the page it's the second panel, but it's not Annie's ass though.
What the frick? It's been like 3 months since I read this shit. Why are we back in spookyworld? I thought this was done with when that kid ghost and Jeanne got exorcised. Tom you fricking hack.
He's a hack, that's my point. He's going around in circles because he's the king of stalling for time. It'll be years before Loup Namek is resolved and when it is, it won't be an epic fight or wahtever it'll just be Annie deciding to go home and it'll be done and we'll never hear about Loup again.
But he's not going around in circles, this is a different character that has nothing to do with Jeanne and it makes sense for him to show up here in the context of Kat's role in the robots gaining bodies. You haven't even read the comic in three months and are conflating things that aren't even the same. Call Tom a hack all you want, I think his writing's gotten pretty shitty too, but this isn't really the thing to attack him over.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Why are we back in spookyworld? I thought this was done with when that kid ghost and Jeanne got exorcised
Why would you assume that a thing that INTRODUCED Kat's god form would just be dropped as soon as the Jeanne arc was over? Did you really think we were just never going to see that again? You dense son?
Hello Tom.
5 months ago
Anonymous
I literally said that Tom's writing has gotten shit and you can call him a hack though. Quit being obtuse, just because you're arguing from a wrong angle doesn't make me Tom.
>Why are we back in spookyworld? I thought this was done with when that kid ghost and Jeanne got exorcised
Why would you assume that a thing that INTRODUCED Kat's god form would just be dropped as soon as the Jeanne arc was over? Did you really think we were just never going to see that again? You dense son?
oooh now we're talking. dead thing, and souls keep it going?
“The world continues to spin”
I would like to sincerely thank the anon that recommended Pantheon last thread
No problem bro, iit's a hidden treasure. More people need to see it.
Yeah me too, I'm still halfway through season 1 but really enjoying it so far, honestly a lot more than I thought I would.
Glad to have been of service!
Title drop
I forget who the big stone guy is and why he needs the translator. He's the first ever psychopomp or something, right? Looks very aztec-styled.
His name is Arbiter Saslamel. He's not a psychopomp, he shows up whenever a magical contract is in dispute / about to be broken. He speaks in runes because he's one of the oldest beings or something and too stubborn to learn modern speech.
Cheers lads, thanks
we really don't know that much about them. that big ol face is arbiter saslamel. he's so ancient and only speaks the old tongue so interpretor ghost has to be nearby to translate. they rule over status changes and cosmic contracts
>them
What makes you think Saslamel is more than one entity?
Kat sees the guy in his full majesty and not as a cardboard prop, so he's like a psychopomp in that way. He stops time when he shows up. Seems to be on the same rung in the cosmic bureaucracy as the Norns.
He's basically the god of ownership and maybe of relationships between things in general?
If you want a more complete answer, you can check there too:
Kat id abolishing this "return to the ether" bullshit, she probably can make her new people another body and plug their souls back or something.
>showing the neck bandaid
Is this forshadowing?
How very... 'indifferent' of arbiter Saslamel.
https://youtube.com/shorts/TAN2BUk_Cvk?si=Td8d1-YzSlPSZtbb
Is Kat gonna enter a vessel and get gay?
From brooding gulfs are we beheld
By that which bears no name
Its heralds are the stars it fells
The sky and Earth aflame
Corporeal laws are unwrit
As suns and love retreat
To cosmic madness laws submit
Though stalwart minds entreat
In luminous space blackened stars
They gaze, accuse, deny
Roiling, moaning, this realm of ours
In madness lost shall die
Carrion hordes trill their profane
Accord with eldritch plans
To cosmic forms from tangent planes
We end as we began
Thats a vidya game quote. UPVOTED!
I wish Jones would show up.
You are aware that time has probably stopped again when Saslamel showed up?
Good thing Jones operates outside of time.
No she doesn't.
Her powers are super strength, invulnerability and immortality and perfect, infinite memory. That's it.
She's also unusually dense and radio-opaque.
I can't believe the entierity of the universe is fricking DEAD
>Meanwhile, Annie and Rey in her head:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/V_Cfhl4z7gE
>why [plot point]
>because [incoherent poem]
I guess it's a step above "No, I understand.", but Christ.
>Gunnerkrigg thread
>filled with tons of morons who haven't actually read the comic
I hate all of you so much.
>mfw someone forgets a detail from several years ago
Wait, your life DOESN'T revolve around this comic? What a loser you are!
>nooooooooo let me be outraged and cool like asmongold I'm too important to READ this SHIT ok
time to run a nice sharp blade around your neck
How is some random streamer man relevant to this thread
that's the people you imitate with your shitty outrage spam that never address anything but your own feefee
Idk dude I think the comic might just have some problems people are picking up on
Sorr anon but he got you good. You're the autistic homosexual obsessed with decades-old forgettable trivia from this shitty comic the rest of us chads don't waste brain space on anymore.
Do you actually read this? Gross. You are meant to complain and gush over The Annies.
Music in an ancient, long forgotten tongue
So, any ideas what this means?
girls kissing girls
They kissed each other so much they all died?
Not kissing you!
Ether shapes nothing into something.
But if everything is all there is, it might as well be nothing.
But the ether wasn't made out of nothing. Humans made the ether.
And ether made the humans.
No, it didn't. I suppose if you were to say god made the humans and god is made by the ether, that IS true, but that would not disprove that the world isn't a dead thing.
Did you forget about the Jones paradox?
Like I said, it doesn't disprove that the world ISN'T a dead thing.
A world without life is dead, anon.
Ether isn't life on its own.
But humans created the ether. Two contradictory statements can be true at once.
They both can and cannot. That is what a paradox is.
Yes. That's why I specified that two contradictory statements can be true at once. Humans did create the ether and god created humans.
So what disproves that humans created the ether?
...nothing? Nor did I claim so.
The world contains nothing, but from that nothing, something is created, which in turn created the nothing that created it.
It's a paradox, anon.
In that case, that's a very uninsightful statement from old Saslamel! Pretty pointless, even.
Which is exactly Tom's forte, hence why I believe my headcanon to be correct.
Fair enough!
There is no contradiction moron.
A created B
B created A
Where is the mutual exclusion.
>but I cannot reconcile casuality with both statements being true
Then causality or your warrants are wrong. There's nothing inherently contradictory to the statements, plus we know casuality is an illusion in GKC
Read my post again, anon.
Sorry brah, I'm rundown as frick. I j-just wanted to h-have fun and shitfling
That's alright, that's a very valid reason for your hasty response!
>Where is the mutual exclusion.
If A created B, there was a time when A existed and B did not. If B created A, there was a time when B existed and A did not. Both are possible if A and B stop existing and are recreated by the other, but if the existence of A and B is persistent once they've been created, only one of those statements can be true in a particular setting. If A and B exist in a causal loop, neither A nor B are responsible for the existence of that loop, which would be some other cause C.
>there was a time when A existed and B did not
No, not really. That's your warrant.
>if A and B exist in a loop
That is not the only possible solution but even if it were there is no C. IF loops existed then there's no reason there could not be inherent loops. In fact, there almost certainly would be. Unless C is the Prime Cause I think you might be a moron.
>No, not really.
The act of creation involves bringing something into being, which was not in being previously. So yes, if A created B, A would NECESSARILY have been in existence at some time when B was not. And vice versa.
>That is not the only possible solution
I didn't say there wasn't, but it's the obvious one. If you have an alternative, let's hear it.
>IF loops existed then there's no reason there could not be inherent loops.
In such a case, neither A nor B would be the cause of the other, as both would have always existed. And in any causal loop, the contents of the loop can't account for the existence of the loop in the first place. If there is a reason for the loop's existence, it's some other causal factor, designated "C" to keep with the lattering.
>And in any causal loop, the contents of the loop can't account for the existence of the loop in the first place
Based on what, moron. If loops exist then they can exist inherently. There is no impetus on the environment to create a loop. It is the same as requiring a thirdparty to have made the environment to begin with.
IF time exists in a non-linear fashion THEN time is non-linear. That statement is true regardless of whether humans become capable of altering it. There is absolutely no basis to suggest that temporal 'whorls' don't exist in places by the same means as standard causal flow. If causal temporal flow is self-evident and inherent then so to could/would atemporal causality.
tl;dr
>if there's a reason for the loops existence
It's the same reason for the flows existence. Care to justify time itself for me champ.
>Based on what
A causal loop does not contain the answer to the question of why the loop exists. It's self-contained and self-referential, but that's not the same thing as accounting for its own existence. This is elementary analysis here. Consider what an answer to the question, "why does this causal loop exist?" would entail. Denying that the question has an answer is not the same thing as answering it.
>There is no impetus on the environment to create a loop.
There is no impetus on ANYTHING to create the loop. They're usually put in stories by authorial fiat, which serves as the external cause C, but that's not an in-universe explanation for their existence. If there is such an explanation, it's not something within the causal loop.
>IF time exists in a non-linear fashion THEN time is non-linear.
A tautology. But causal loops are linear. Cause follows effect as normal. Things just run in a circle. Actually adding proper additional dimensions to time makes events completely unpredictable from any given vantage point.
>There is absolutely no basis to suggest that temporal 'whorls' don't exist in places by the same means as standard causal flow
This is unrelated to whether the cause of the loop is something within the loop itself.
>Care to justify time itself for me champ.
The increase in entropy as causal effects propagate away from set boundary conditions of a higher dimensional timeless manifold that constitutes the entire history of the universe.
>A causal loop does not contain the answer to the question of why the loop exists
Based on what
Do you not understand the question?
I think you genuinely lack the capacity of abstract thought. Sorry to break it to you
>entire history of the universe
Sounds pretty self referential to me wiener sucker. Any temporal activity is inherently self referential. There will always be a "here" and a "there". Unless you are willing to entertain a C for the universe itself and are aware that doing so is recursive like a kid asking "why" no matter what you tell them, then sure. C. The same C made the loop made the universe.
Because if time can loop then it will always have had the properties that allow such a form to exist and, supposing it does, there is no reason to presuppose such a formation requires temporal causality to occur. In fact, because it is an atemporal state it would be unlikely for temporal causality to affect it at all.
If at some stage causality loops it will have always looped unless you believe the flow of time itself is in constant flux in which case your manifold can suck my balls.
>a tautology
Yes Black person, like saying time exists because time exists.
>well it's the entro-
1)a theory
2)why does entropy exist
>I'm not sure bu-
Reality exists in the form it does because reality exists in the form it does. Even if some higher order interaction created this specific iteration of reality there would likewise be forces and laws applied to that higher order mechanic/force and it too would have some manner of causality be it temporal or otherwise - else it would be unable to interact with anything or produce anything.
So if you insist something must have created a loop in time then I insist something necessitated time and entropy.
The reality is, you sperg, that inherent universal laws are simply that. Inherent. The only circumstance in which a loop MUST have been a result of causality is in the EXTREMELY unlikely, or perhaps impossible, hypothetical that we alter the very foundation of reality to do so - and if we had all bets are off and conventional understandings discarded
but muscle parley WHEN?
At this pace? Next chapter or longer. What is she going to contribute to Kat's ascension and Zimdawg's possible fall?
This is a very good question.
I want to see her oil her muscles.
I need this so much...
But anon, you fail to see the obvious. Much more important and relevant is to reach a definitive consensus about the intricacies of causality loops and what that means to the broader plane of existence.
So we must post away about that instead of posting about Parkey oiling up her musles. Please understand.
34 chapters ago.
>Any temporal activity is inherently self referential.
Not in the sense of a causal loop.
>then sure. C
Concession taken.
>Unless you are willing to entertain a C for the universe itself
Yes, obviously. Causality itself can't account for its own existence for the same reason. This has been known for more than 2300 years now.
>In fact, because it is an atemporal state it would be unlikely for temporal causality to affect it at all.
And therefore, a causal loop can't account for its own existence.
>like saying time exists because time exists.
You're the one who said it as if it were adding something to the conversation.
>1)a theory
Fundamental physical processes work the same running time forward and backwards. The "arrow of time" comes from entropy increasing in one direction and not the other, which results in things like thermal gradients evening out of their own accord rather than the reverse.
>2)why does entropy exist
Because the space of possible states is much larger than the number of components in a system. Causal propagation away from some fixed boundary condition tends to have the system component states spread out away from the initial state to some random derived possible state.
>inherent universal laws are simply that. Inherent.
X being an inherent property of Y does not constitute a get-out-of-causality-free card. Why is there Y instead of Z?
>And therefore, a causal loop can't account for its own existence.
Nothing can you fricking idiot. That's the entire fricking point. See what I mean about abstract thought you rote learnt parrot.
>Nothing can you fricking idiot.
Consider a setting where humans made the ether. At some point, there were humans around and no ether, and then humans made the ether, so now both are around. Why is the ether there? Because humans made it. Bam. That's what "accounting for the existence of something" involves in the sense that causal loops don't answer.
Maybe this will help if the time element is tripping you up. Consider this:
The Hatfields fight the McCoys because the McCoys attacked the Hatfields.
The McCoys fight the Hatfields because the Hatfields attacked the McCoys.
A self-contained causal loop which explains the ongoing feud. But why did they start feuding in the first place? The answer is not to be found in that loop.
You are one pompous sack of shit. The answer is a tautology, or failing that, if we want to be a reductive little wienersucker, the reason they feud is the Prime Cause. You genuinely have issues with abstract thought, which makes me laugh a little given you seem to be invested in high-minded concepts like theoretical physics. Were we discussing temporal interactions you would not see the issue - but allow me to generously illustrate it for you.
The Hatfields may have started an altercation which developed into the feud and that may be the surface level answer but the question still remains how and why did the Hatifields start the altercation and on from there why such a cause created the effect that prompted the Hatfield's to start the altercation.
Inevitably the answer becomes a tuatology. There is no greater cause or reason than the Prime Cause. It happened because it happened. Whether you choose to see the Prime Cause as the beginning of this universe and the founding of the fundamental laws or if you wish to refer to an unknown point beyond our capacity where whatever created us was created and so on and on ad infinitum.
While the mechanics through which the Prime Cause is expressed allow us to model the coming events in a linear temporal state, that is all they do. They are no more justified in their existence than a loop would be. Unless the very fabric or reality is a mobius strip or Oroborous then it is impossible to say otherwise. An origin can never be defined because to begin there must be laws, mechanics and force by which a beginning can be expressed. A point of self reference.
>The answer is a tautology
No, it isn't. Do you know what a tautology is?
>the reason they feud is the Prime Cause.
No, the reason they feud is assorted misbehavior. It's an actual thing that happened:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield%E2%80%93McCoy_feud
The feud was self-perpetuating once it got going, but feuds have some external cause that gets them going. Pointing at the causal loop of the feud does not account for why it's there in the first place
>Unless the very fabric or reality is a mobius strip or Oroborous
In which case we're back to a causal loop that doesn't account for its own existence. The non-universality of causality is unavoidable in ultimate origin scenarios, and those can usually be ignored as unknowable. But it's relevant RIGHT HERE AND NOW because the ultimate origin of a causal loop is the specific topic of discussion. Just saying that A and B caused each other and that's that doesn't actually answer the question of why either is there, and the simplicity of the causal loop brings that to immediate attention here. There's no vast causal web stretching to infinity and eternity, it's just A and B in a tight loop.
So how is the game going Imaa?
It's going alright-ish. I'm gonna be in a little bit of financial trouble for a little bit so I'll have to open commissions for at least a while, which will additionally cut into my time spent on working on it, so that sucks, but I'll be fine and as I've said many times, part 1 will definitely be finished at some point.
Maybe its that etheric beings see a world based on causality as a world that is implicitly dead?
Well it's certainly one that is static. Like looking at a painting. Everything has been decided form the moment of its inception. Well everything outside you adding a brush stroke if the whim took you. From that perspective it truly is dead, the hopes, dreams and fears of its inhabitants no more immaterial and artificial than the expressions of a portrait.
That's my general line of thinking so far, yeah, but it has some kind of wonky implications.
If the soul is a person's essential being, and is an etheric entity, then why is the world dead?
The thing about a world of causality is that ANY single event, anything at all, which occurs without following the laws of causality means that everything, EVERYTHING from that point on is moot. Which I guess we have been seeing in the story from when Kat did her time loop nonsense, but then if causality is why the world is dead, and causality is now broken, then that means the world is alive again according to this.
Maybe its the opposite, though? Maybe the Court fricked up SUPER FRICKING HARD with their prognostication device and pulled the classic reverse causality bullshit where by attempting to look at the future, they locked the future into place and removed free will from everybody retroactively by collapsing the wave function and having that propagate backwards like the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and that is why the world is dead?
Still doesn't truck with Kat breaking the thing though. I don't think there is enough information to speculate accurately yet, honestly, so I'm just throwing ideas at the wall.
*Annie is breaking it, not Kat. We have no confirmation yet that Kat is the one who caused Annie to be an anomaly.
Annie is still alive because of Kat, which ultimately means that the source of the predictions being broken is Kat, even if Annie is the method by which they are broken.
It's just wibbly wobbly timey wimey bullshit though, so I'm not sure the distinction even matters or if it just creates an oroboros.
My point is that that is a theory that hasn't been confirmed at all. For all we know it could have been Coyote who messed Annie up, or Jeanne, or Annie's future work as Kat's psychopomp. Any number of potential reasons.
Just because a theory is the most likely theory doesn't make it fact.
The distinction is important because it points to Kat being the Chosen One rather than Annie all along or whatever. Kat is the true endgame of the Court’s endeavor for man to become God. Annie is just the cute ordinary half-fire elemental that Kat likes.
wait, what is that
I *never* watched king of the hill and I never will.
Your loss anon, it's funny as frick.
Fresh new nose, straight out of the oven!
>the own esco soul et why?
What did Annie mean by this?
Its an ancient lesbian tongue, lost to the sands of time. She is trying to bewitch Kate by whispering the forbiden words to her ear.
Put it back in! It came out wrong!
Cute nose! Kissssssss!
Stop! It's dangerous! You'll get cut!
>Ancient eldritch deity with a cute ghost sidekick is a materialist
Now I’ve seen it all.
Gee, I sure do love when so many of the threads end up some autistic arguments about something ultimately not related to the comic, like quantum phisics, robotics, causality or transhumanism! Oh boy!
But all of these topics are very closely related to the comic, anon...
Very tangentially. In the end you are no longer talking about the comic.
>Is this not why you are here?
Literaly, no.
Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?
Wait a minute...
If Annie's boobs are A
Kate's vulva is B
And Rey's knot is C, then...
Who's Kate?
You know, Annie's secret crush, super scientist, lesbian lover of spanish cooch, soon to become a metal deity, destroyer of the once great A.I. civilization.
You know, Kate.
Never heard of her.
There's a Kat in the comic, you might like her.
Hmm, I'll look into it.
*clears throat*
Ahem.
Annie's boobs.
Whatever happened to AI anon? He said he was gonna train loras for other characters and never came back ...
Ai anon, make us some oiled up muscle parley!
AI anon could make us microbikini pregnant Kat before that! Oiled up muscular Parley can come after that.
Here's a non-pregnant one.
(You can also get Kat pregnant in one of the side games I made, though I don't have both preggers and microbikini.)
Based
>though I don't have both preggers and microbikini.
You are half the way there!
All of that is nice and dandy but where is my pregnant microbikini Zimmy?
All of that is great and all but do clones count as separate people?
No, clones have no human rights, because they were born in a weird way.
Indeed, refer to the Pokemon movie for further documentation.
Yeah like, if you had a perfect clone of Hitler would you torture it?
>do clones count as separate people?
Depends on how you do the counting. Do twins count as separate people by the method you have in mind?
I, for one, support anniekat kisses.
Unf
I always thought it was weird how Tom had that entire chapter just listing every girl's body count.
And it was especially fricked up that Gamma's was somehow even higher than Jones.
Wait, the girls have killed people?
Technically Kat genocided an entire race
Not really, its still a work in progress.
What once was, will be. What is, has been.
the other kind of body count, anon
Supporters in a popularity contest?
followed by Kat in 3rd place:
Was this before or after the elf talked about how Tony had a right to Annie's virgin womb? I feel like she would've been more popular before that.
>how Tony had a right to Annie's virgin womb?
Wait, what?!
Jones looks so fricking hot in this dress. damn I wish she'd groom me
I need this in my life.
Same. It's a shame I'm not attractive.
Just get attractive then?
Can't fix my face shape and semi-baldness.
just be a gimp bro ez
2nd place was one of the Annies
>Rips her shirt in half from the collar and instantly starts sucking her nipples
Why are people arguing about paradoxes in a comic that has time travel, multiple timelines, and magical gods that were retroactively made to exist in the past?
Why are people talking about apples inside a fruit basket that holds strawberries, kiwifruits and apples?
>magical gods that were retroactively made to exist in the past
Sure looks like a paradox there.
Yep, and who the frick cares?
I need a preggers microbikini Gamma!
so is annie more of a leather girl, or latex like kat?
obviously kat is latex all the way
I never "got" clothing types.
What makes latex or leather so sexy to you?
latex would be about how it smoothes the features out, making the person more of a doll or a mannequin, so you can conflate it to something like a depersonalization fetish
leather has a bit more weight and shape to it, so it's more about them *being* something, like a harness for a ponygirl or a collar for a slave
obviously you can mix and match too to get both
I think the only way you can know is to draw Kat in a latex hood and draw Kat in a leather hood and then see how each make you feel.
Court Annie is leather, forest Annie is body paint.
>Can't fix my face shape
Lose weight, grow a beard.
>semi-baldness
Shave it.
God look at that shoulder! Damn!
This has a very "webcomic 2000s" feeling to it.
>2/6 monitors are focused on annie
THE ANNIE/KAT SHIP IS REAAAAAL
I feel we should make an AnnieKat version of the 'one piece is real' meme.
But how would that be?
I don't know but it requires court annie in leathers and forest annie in body paint.
What? That doesn't makes sense. The one piece is real meme involves Whitebeard shouting the phrase.
The only people close enough to that level of musles are Parley and Eglamore.
We would choose Parley, because waifus.
It makes perfect sense you're just too austic.
I'm 90% sure that the middle left picture behind Kat's arm is focusing on Annie's ass, but I can't find which page that pic is from.
I think its from the chapter where they're all stuck in the wisp beehive.
I've been trying to find that chapter, but I somehow skipped past it multiple times. Anyway found the page it's the second panel, but it's not Annie's ass though.
What the frick? It's been like 3 months since I read this shit. Why are we back in spookyworld? I thought this was done with when that kid ghost and Jeanne got exorcised. Tom you fricking hack.
>Wtf I haven't read this thing in months and things have changed
The frick did you expect
Things haven't changed though that's my point Tom is rehashing old plot points and characters to fill space because he's a hack.
Have you not read the comic in fricking years? The arbiter has nothing to do with the ghost world Jeanne was trapped in.
He's a HACK and he killed the other annie. A HACK.
Ok yeah I'm pissed about the Annies too but your criticism about the arbiter literally makes no sense.
He's a hack, that's my point. He's going around in circles because he's the king of stalling for time. It'll be years before Loup Namek is resolved and when it is, it won't be an epic fight or wahtever it'll just be Annie deciding to go home and it'll be done and we'll never hear about Loup again.
But he's not going around in circles, this is a different character that has nothing to do with Jeanne and it makes sense for him to show up here in the context of Kat's role in the robots gaining bodies. You haven't even read the comic in three months and are conflating things that aren't even the same. Call Tom a hack all you want, I think his writing's gotten pretty shitty too, but this isn't really the thing to attack him over.
Hello Tom.
I literally said that Tom's writing has gotten shit and you can call him a hack though. Quit being obtuse, just because you're arguing from a wrong angle doesn't make me Tom.
So you're dense, right.
>Why are we back in spookyworld? I thought this was done with when that kid ghost and Jeanne got exorcised
Why would you assume that a thing that INTRODUCED Kat's god form would just be dropped as soon as the Jeanne arc was over? Did you really think we were just never going to see that again? You dense son?