Pastelland Forum

WorldisQuiet5256 wrote:What he meant was that how each Layer is the exact same Place as each other but when you combine or observed two Layers at the same time that it might create not a Eighth Layer but say Layer 1 plus Layer 2 gets you Layer 1.2

Er... no
Why do you complicate even more?
There isn't any additional layer at any time. And well, yeah, you could also fusionate 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 layers, but it has no sense for the objective we want: destroy the seven layers at a time. And when we fusionate the whole seven layers, every layer exists in every layer, making the seven layers seem a single layer, but there's no eight layer.

Yeah, each Layer remains its own seperate Layer when fused, I see what you're saying. However:

but it has no sense for the objective we want: destroy the seven layers at a time

While Mur's objective seems to destroy the copies, we can't assume each Layer is thus a copy, and the original is "Layer0." The original must be Layer 5 because that's where the story continues, or it might be any other Layer. Point being: Destroy all seven layers, and there's nothing left. All the Layers make up reality, destroying them thus destroys reality (at least, from what I understand.)

Rooster5man wrote:Yeah, each Layer remains its own seperate Layer when fused, I see what you're saying. However:

but it has no sense for the objective we want: destroy the seven layers at a time

While Mur's objective seems to destroy the copies, we can't assume each Layer is thus a copy, and the original is "Layer0." The original must be Layer 5 because that's where the story continues, or it might be any other Layer. Point being: Destroy all seven layers, and there's nothing left. All the Layers make up reality, destroying them thus destroys reality (at least, from what I understand.)

I agree, although the theory only focus on a practical way. The fact of "destroying" the submachine only serves as an example of what can layers do if melted. Actually the example is not "destroying the layers", it's "destroying the subnet". If, as you say, Layer 5 is reality, or the original, the whole world is in that layer, and we can't destroy the whole layer 5.
Then the example will be:
1) Destroying the subnet in layer 5.
2) When destroying it, make sure the other 6 layers coexist with 5 so that our actions in layer 5 have repercussion in the remaining 6.
3) Finally, the subnet that affects the world (5) is destroyed. The world remains intact.

But as I say, "destroy" is a very vulgar and unprecise word for the concepts of subnet.

I wasn't complaining about his theory.

It was just a quote I found that may have been useful.

You could've said that then

@Rulo: Define "destroy" then, because, by destroying (in the real sense of the word) the Layers would be destroying everything, I'm sure. And that's what concerns me - I don't know if Mur's plan will backfire on him. If he does indeed destroy the copies, are we so sure the SubNet is not STILL destroyed in the process? I find it a Catch-22 - The SubNet either progressively gets destroyed from copies being made, or Mur can destroy them one by one and still have the same outcome.

(probably wrong place to talk about this :/)

I was thinking that, but wasn't going to say anything. XD

Rooster5man wrote:You could've said that then

@Rulo: Define "destroy" then, because, by destroying (in the real sense of the word) the Layers would be destroying everything, I'm sure. And that's what concerns me - I don't know if Mur's plan will backfire on him. If he does indeed destroy the copies, are we so sure the SubNet is not STILL destroyed in the process? I find it a Catch-22 - The SubNet either progressively gets destroyed from copies being made, or Mur can destroy them one by one and still have the same outcome.

(probably wrong place to talk about this :/)

But we're not destroying the layers, we're destroying the parts of subnet in every layer Like destroying the cancerigen cells in a human body without killing the person. Then it only would remain the whole world but without the subnet parts, and as only Layer 5 has more things than the subnet (the world), only would remain something in Layer 5. Then there's no need to name it Layer 5, just "world".

But if he were to destoy the Copy what he could do is fuse the Layers. Like how if we were to destoid our World by fusing our demention with another we would result in destruction due to how no Area can be occupide by more than two Objects.

WorldisQuiet5256 wrote:But if he were to destoy the Copy what he could do is fuse the Layers. Like how if we were to destoid our World by fusing our demention with another we would result in destruction due to how no Area can be occupide by more than two Objects.

huh

what he could do is fuse the Layers.

That's... what the theory is all about

no Area can be occupide by more than two Objects.

I think you say: more than two objects can't occupy the same space. That's why the theory says that if seven objects occupied the same space, they would become hyperunstable.

Maybe that's The Plan.
Capital letters.

To fuse all seven layers in a controlled area (sector nine) in the submachine?
Perhaps the Submachine wanted to carry on making itself more complex, so it would be harder to be defeated by invaders, and it created nine plus sectors in which the fuses were created.

( has this been said before....? )

Maybe we should move this conversation to a new thread called "repeated argumentative theories"