№2717492[Quote]
nophono
№2717946[Quote]
up
№2718240[Quote]
up
№2718786[Quote]
bump
№2718835[Quote]
Lucas won't make it into Smash 6…it is over…
№2718881[Quote]
>>2717486 (OP)I'm extremely invested
№2719043[Quote]
Okay. I've got the whole day to talk
Here's the previous thread
https://archive.ph/9QOMm №2719048[Quote]
Wie lief's?
№2719062[Quote]
did you finish earthbound
№2719072[Quote]
>>2719048Die Prufung lief sehr gut, falls du das meinst.
№2719085[Quote]
>>2719068We never resolved the doubting dispute
Explain your thought experiment again
№2719118[Quote]
>>27190851/2
Well I first want to mention my apriori belief in that sense, that I believe in reality and so on, but I think that we can only know the truth about it if we can construct a solid firmament for our theory of knowledge.
To explain my thought experiment I want to give a quick anology how I view our current situation regarding what can be true and what is false etc. I think we should realize that we are trapped in a fog of uncertainty meaning we cant see the truth clearly, we might glimpse at outlines of it, what I want to achiieve with my experiments is that it should function as kind of a mountain which we can climb out to escape the fog.
№2719140[Quote]
>>27190852/2
Now coming to the basic of the experiment.
For the first step towards truth is always uncertainty or in toher words doubt. There is no apriori belief which avoids this doubting. So what I want to do is doubt everything which I have ever believed to be true, including logical statements and so on, because as I said we cant know for certain that they are true.
Now after doubting everything even my own existence, the basic gist is that there still exists something, something that doubts.
This is the bare bone argument which my thought experiment relies on.
№2719165[Quote]
>>2719118>>2719140kant reincarnated
question: what separates doubt from a tree? In fact, wouldnt doubt be more uncertain than a tree?
I see the tree is there regardless of what I think, but doubt disappears the moment I start believing or something like that
№2719177[Quote]
>>2719165But how can you trust your senses? There are many instances in your daily life, where clrearly your eyes show you somthing different than whats actually happening, look at optical illusions for example.
№2719252[Quote]
>>2719177I think you're right about the conclusion, there is something that doubts, but I dont agree with the line of reasoning
doubt is something we create and can disappear with the mind, but if I'm looking at it, its much harder for me to disappear a tree
>But how can you trust your senses? There are many instances in your daily life, where clrearly your eyes show you somthing different than whats actually happening, look at optical illusions for example.sure, I've hallucinated before, but no matter what, my senses never go blank
even if the thing im seeing isnt real, I'm still seeing something, if there was nothing to see then why would I see at all?
If its all an illusion (in my head) then why cant I disappear things with my mind the way I can dispel doubt?
№2719253[Quote]
>>2719140>>2719177What I don't understand is why you claim that we can not trust our senses, but have faith in the doubts from our conscience. We are not certain about how that functions unlike the senses,so the assumption the there must always be a doubting thing is unsubstantiated
№2719264[Quote]
>>2719252>>2719253Wait I am refining my argument in word, it will take some time, because I want to do it as rigorous as possible and then if you still have questions we can discuss it.
№2719268[Quote]
>>2719252The problem is that you never know for certain if it is ahallucination or not, maybe you are just a person in the year 3055 and are in an ultra realistic VR simulation.
№2719292[Quote]
>>2719264Okay. I will wait for that
№2719311[Quote]
>>2719268Why do you not apply doubts to that? The feeling and function of doubting may be something else that we do not know. Everything may be a delusion with this framework
№2719318[Quote]
>>2719268A simulation kinda proves my point perfectly
sure, what I'm seeing isnt there, but there still is something (the simulation)
you could say the simulation is inside a simulation ad infinitum, but thats boring, and still, there would at the end of the day need to be something that runs the simulation
At this point it stops mattering to me, at least.
For whatever reason I can see, and for whatever reason there is something, and because there is something I see things.
If theres nothing I wouldnt see, because theres no me.
If i cant see, or sense anything, then theres nothing but me.
№2719389[Quote]
What exam? Was it over a certain topic or was it a general Abi?
№2719396[Quote]
>>2719311I think I want to give a more rigorous approach to my thought experiment. I also have slightly modified it so it doesn't prove that something doubts, but a weaker statement, mainly: There are things/beliefs which are 100% true.
First I want to introduce a method called "methodical doubting" or just doubting if you prefer, it goes as follows:
1. Take any belief but take "methodical doubting" and the three axioms stated below as last.
2. If you are not 100% certain that it is true disregard it as wrong.
3. Repeat step one.
This methodology is self consistent if we allow following three axioms:
1. The axiom of choice, i. e. I am permitted to choose any belief to analyse it.
2. Beliefs do exist.
3. I can group beliefs together to one belief, if there ontological nature is similar.
Now one would naturally ask the following four questions:
1. Why cant I doubt my method?
Because it will be the belief that we doubt at last.
2. How do we know that there is such thing as 100% certainty?
This will be answered by my next question.
3. How do we doubt all beliefs, clearly there are too many?
That's the interesting part, the first belief I will doubt is that things exist that I can be 100% certain of, we will find that we have to disregard it as wrong (atleast for the moment). After having done that all other believes will follow (except one which I will show later).
4. What about the axioms, you are assuming they are true?
The next step will answer that question.
After having analysed and disregarded almost all beliefs, I want to look at my last three that remain:
1. The axiom of choice.
2. Beliefs exist.
3. Axiom three.
4. Doubting/ "methodical doubting"
I will do something that is still very much allowed to do, I take the three axioms and group them together as one belief and since the Axiom of choice is included in that belief I choose this belief to doubt next. I will find that due to my reasoning from before, I cant be certain about that belief and have to disregard it, but now here is something interesting, the method of doubt remains.
Why?
I cant choose it anymore, since the axiom of choice isn't here anymore which allows me to do this and all beliefs are gone since I doubt axiom two. Now doubting still exists and is not a belief, then the belief in methodical doubting is either wrong or true.
Aha, but I have reached a contradiction! I know for certain now that the method is either true or false, but I have disregarded my belief on absolute truth. Therefore absolute truth has to exist and cant be disregarded.
№2719402[Quote]
>>2719318But how do you know you are you, maybe your memories are fiction and you have no continued existence?
№2719405[Quote]
>>2719311Btw I think it would be better if we discuss one issue after the other form top to bottom, so we can do this methodically.
№2719462[Quote]
>>2719402why would that matter? I would still experience things right now.
Shrimp probably dont have a whole lot of thought, maybe not even an idea of self, but they'll still eat if they get hungry, or fuck, and you dont need a concept for self to do either, in fact its more important to have a sense for "the other" else how do you know what to eat?
>maybe your memories are fiction and you have no continued existence?maybe I dont have a continued experience, and do not exist right now in the real world, but theres no way to perceive that so why would I care?
Imagine being in the sims or something, but unlike all the other sims, you see "the truth" outside of the simulation somehow: theres no way for you to benefit from that, you cant escape the simulation and it probably comes at the cost of perceiving inside the simulation
Besides "the truth" you are perceiving might just be another simulation.
Not that this will happen, because if you can perceive outside the simulation then you're not (fully) inside the simulation. (definitionally)
The distinction I create among things is something I do for my own benefit, but the sensations I have to work with are involuntary, even when I'm hallucinating
So doubt is really just a "fake" thing, you created to benefit you and systematize your thinking, but its less real then what you see in front of you rn
№2719484[Quote]
>>2719396>Take any belief but take "methodical doubting" and the three axioms stated below as lastThis is poorly written. Please rephrase it
№2719489[Quote]
>>2719462Of course you can always say there is a simulation beyond a simulation beyond a simulation etc. but I kind of want a theory of metalogic, take your sims analogy for example, he might realise he is in a simulation or not that is not important, same goes for me, I just want to find a truth that is true regrdless of me/the other/everything.
>preceive outside the simulation you are not fully inside the simulationThis is of little concern to me, since there could be an infinite amount of simulations stacked on top of each other, but assuming first oder logic and ZFC in ayn of them as true would still give you advanced mathematics for example.
№2719505[Quote]
>>2719484Choose any belief in the following order:
1. There are things which are 100% true/certain.
2. ….
.
.
.
n-1. Beliefs ABC.
n. mehtodical doubting.
I define belief ABC apriori as the three axioms grouped together.
№2719509[Quote]
>>2719505I should have written:
Doubt any believe in the following order.
№2719564[Quote]
>>2719489>I just want to find a truth that is true regrdless of me/the other/everything.thats kinda ridiculous nigga.
All the truth obviously depends on everything, you and other people included.
>first oder logic and ZFC in ayn of them as true would still give you advanced mathematics for example.mathematics depends on the set or the domain you're working in
for example x^2+1=0 has no integer solutions for x, but disproving it has a integer solution is impossible, there are infinitely many integers after all, and so we can only prove it has a complex solution
Before the imaginary domain was made up whole-cloth by a crazy italian dude, niggas straight up had no clue
The only way to fix the above problem would be to get rid of multiplication, which, because it is repeated addition, and integers are "built" on the concept of adding shit, gets rid of all numbers
Working with a set of binary numbers (like a computer) wont give you complex numbers necessarily, because just like how integers are "defined" by addition, binary numbers are "built" on logical operations
Compsci has just done a good job of tying to fit the square peg of mathematics into the round hole of logical operations (like with the floating-point numbers).
№2719592[Quote]
>>2719396This relies on the assumption that there must always be logic, reality, and perception, but how could any of those things be true in your framework? We can only do this conceptualization because we have these concepts in all of our theories, but that could not be true. We could be a product of chaos, and logic would not apply to that
№2719593[Quote]
>>2719564>thats kinda ridiculous nigga.All the truth obviously depends on everything, you and other people included.
How do you know this for certain?
>mathematics depends on the set or the domain you're working inYes thats why I said if you assume first order logic and zermelo freankel set axioms you could construct modern mathematics just as we have it here on earth in any other universe regardless of its physical laws.
Disporve that x^2+1== has no integer solution.
This proof is fairly easy since the integers are imbedded in an orered field the real numbers and in any ordered field the square of a number is bigger then 0, therefore this equation has no solution in the real numbers.
№2719598[Quote]
>>2719592No you misunderstand, the method of doubt is like a computer program it only needs internal logic (which I have well defined) not outside one.
№2719669[Quote]
>>2719598But you are applying that to something we do not know about. It could have different laws that make all of our logic not applicable, or be a form of chaos that is not bound by logic
We can not be certain about things beyond us, let alone have absolute certainty about it
№2719692[Quote]
>>2719593>All the truth obviously depends on everything, you and other people included.well if the Truth doesnt account for anything its not true
if the Truth doesnt account for 1 thing then it may be true, but its not the Truth, i.e. its not true for that one thing
>>2719593>disproving it has NO integer solutionsambitious, I like it.
> since the integers are imbedded in an orered field the real numbers and in any ordered field the square of a number is bigger then 0there are ordered fields without 0 though,
but you probably mean it has to have a square greater than the neutral element of addition in that field
however you base your proof on this rule without proving the rule.
Besides that, im not saying it has no integer solution, just that proving it has none does not equal disproving it has one, if that makes sense
If you maintained that a statement is true if it cannot be falsified, you're fucked in any field with infinite elements
What I meant to say was that you've already defined truth in some way, but depending on how you can reach different conclusions. Its very easy to say for us it has no integer solutions because we already know thats true, but this wasnt the case for medieval niggas
№2719703[Quote]
>>2719669Let me give you an analogy (I am not too sure myself), the game of monopoly for example with all its rules is self contained it doesnt rely on outside factors, you can make deductions from the inside about what lies outside of the rules of monopoly, but regardless if there is chaos or not the rules of monopoly are unchanged, the same goes for my method, it defines rules that are irrelevant to the outside conditions and make the system internally work, but by applying certain operations, I can gain a little bit of actual truth from the outside, mainly that there are things which are 100% certainly true.
№2719735[Quote]
>>2719692>disproving it has NO integer solutionsoh shit my bad I am esl I misread, sorry.
If that is what you are out for the best I can do is that I can prove that you cannot disprove it, I can show you if you want.
>there are fields without 0 doeNo, a field contains a 0 per definition but diregaard my previous comment, I misread.
>well if the Truth doesnt account for anything its not trueWell I may have phrased it too lose, I meant finding the truth without having to rely on statements that cant really be proven or are arbitrary.
№2719766[Quote]
>>2719692Okay I prove that you cannot disporve that x^2+1=0 has no integer solution.
Proof: We can easily show that x^2+1=0 has no integer solution, suppose we could disporve this proof. This would yield to an internal contradiction, since the axioms in which prove the first statement is free of contradictions (there is a very difficult proof that shows this), therefore you cannot disporve that x^2+1=0 has no integer solution. You will never be able to do this.
№2719778[Quote]
>>2719703>but by applying certain operations, I can gain a little bit of actual truth from the outside, mainly that there are things which are 100% certainly true.I understand the logic, but how can you be absolutely certain about it?
It the previous thread you said,
>can you prove that the object will fall onto earth at 1000000000000 or the 9999999999999999999999999999999 time or at the nth time with absolute certainty?>You couldnt because you can only infringe upon the past instances this happened thus you cant prove it with absolute certaintySo why does this prove it with absolute certainty? You also use past instances as a reference because you are bound to your mind
№2719804[Quote]
>>2719778>I understand the logic, but how can you be absolutely certain about itI know of advanced logical statement methods that go in that direction to proof this, but as I have aslo mentioned in the previous thread, this is something I am currently thinking about and not something that is finished, I do not claim to be asbolutely right about anything at this moment, I am only bringing forth my beliefs with the knowlegde I currently have.
>So why does this prove it with absolute certainty? You also use past instances as a reference because you are bound to your mindLet me put it like this, my mind in this case is simply the processor/computer thats running the algorithm, it doesnt matter what past experiences the computer/mind has what matters is that the method of doubt can still be executed and it will yield the same result every time.
№2719844[Quote]
>>2719703>you can make deductions from the inside about what lies outside of the rules of monopolythis is where I disagree
the operations define the elements, but if we take binary logic for example, the set [0,1] and NAND, we can re-create all the other logical functions, but not say addition. 0 OR 1 = 1, but it isnt addition, defining addition for this field is meaningless because its OR in disguise
0 + 1 = 1 <-> 0 OR 1 = 1 and 1 + 0 = 1 <-> 1 OR 0 = 1
in order to define addition we have to take the in-product of the field [0,1] with itself
now we have [00,01,10,11]
and 00 OR 01 = 01, BUT 01 OR 01 =01 <-> 01 + 01 = 10
we can then define addition, multiplication as a combination of logical functions
if we take the in-product of [0,1] with itself a couple of times, we dont ever end up with negative numbers, but with two's complement, even if we do this an infinite amount of times, meaning binary numbers will always have "overlap" of "negative" and "positive" numbers, more accurately, we cannot say negative numbers exist in a binary number system
>>2719766the problem isnt with proving or disproving, but how you do it
I would suggest that x^2+1=0 proves imaginary numbers exist, because if we suppose that theres no contradiction
№2719869[Quote]
>>2719844all this to say you cant make inferences about complex numbers starting from binary operations, therefore you cant infer anything about the real world using the rules of monopoly, no matter how closely the rules of monopoly resemble the outside world
№2719876[Quote]
>>2719804>I do not claim to be asbolutely right about anything at this moment, I am only bringing forth my beliefs with the knowlegde I currently haveYet you are making claims about absolute certainty, which are absolutely right
>it doesnt matter what past experiences the computer/mind has what matters is that the method of doubt can still be executed and it will yield the same result every time.How does that prove your point? Both of those things are limited, so how could they get absolute certainty?
№2719880[Quote]
>>2719844>this is where I disagreeOkay valid.
>the problem isnt with proving or disproving, but how you do it. I would suggest that x^2+1=0 proves imaginary numbers exist, because if we suppose that theres no contradictionI largely agree but there is no supposing you can literally prove that a system can be free of internal contradictions.
Secondly while I agree with the math of the binary things, I dont see your point the binary system is just a representation instead of the usual decimal system, we can also use base pi or base i as in the imaginary numbers, but you have to be aware that these are just representations and you of course can proof things that are ture in the reals in the binary system.
№2719882[Quote]
>>2719858Thank you for posting this. I forgot to download it from the previous thread
№2719887[Quote]
>>2719869binary system is just a representation, you can infringe on the complex numbers, by first translating into the decimals were everything is well defined and then proving that imaginary numbers exist.
№2719897[Quote]
>>2719876>Yet you are making claims about absolute certainty, which are absolutely rightValid point, but by your logic nobody could make any claims since a claim relies on absolute certainty.
>How does that prove your point? Both of those things are limited, so how could they get absolute certainty?In what sense limited, I agree they have finite properties, but logical conclusions just like the game of monopoly is finite.
№2719905[Quote]
>>2719880>I largely agree but there is no supposing you can literally prove that a system can be free of internal contradictions.proving it has no internal contradictions is easy, only the axioms neednt be contradictory
DISproving it has A contradiction is impossible
>>2719887No, a field is defined by its operations, not its elements.
You start from the smallest possible set and a single operator, and work your way out to expand the set and number of operations, because thats how you ensure you end up with a field without contradictions
If you treat binary numbers just as a representation, you end up with internal contradictions the same way a computer ends up with rounding errors.
This should be pretty important to you if you care about truth.
№2719947[Quote]
>>2719905>DISproving it has A contradiction is impossibleYou can prove this. I think what you want to get at is that you cant prove the axioms are true with certainty.
>No, a field is defined by its operations, not its elements.Wrong a field in the algebraic sense can either have a finite amount of elements or an infinite one, therfore elements also determine the field,
№2719962[Quote]
>>2719947The way you would prove is that you show that in the axioms of first order logic meta statements (statements about statements) are contradiction free.
№2719981[Quote]
>>2719947>Wrong a field in the algebraic sense can either have a finite amount of elements or an infinite one, therfore elements also determine the fieldmakes no actual sense. the set [0,1] using addition and equality expands to integers, then complex numbers
like I've shown the set [0,1] using the NAND operation expands to binary numbers
a field of elements without any operation is meaningless.
№2719987[Quote]
>>2719981I am just saying that operations and elements determine a field not either one exclusively.
№2719991[Quote]
>>2719897>by your logic nobody could make any claims since a claim relies on absolute certainty.No, a claim is a statement about a particular thing. Anyone can say a claim without any certainty and with some certainty
>In what sense limitedLimited in the sense that we can not know everything. We cannot know whether an object will fall to the ground every time if we tested it 9,999,999,999 times because the trials are so numerous and so many factors could prevent the object from falling. From this, I concluded that cannot be absolutely certain about anything
№2720002[Quote]
>>2719987yeah but the amount of elements is totally irrelevant.
№2720014[Quote]
>>2719991>No, a claim is a statement about a particular thing. Anyone can say a claim without any certainty and with some certaintyAnd I am making a claim that there is a way one might be able to proof something with absolute certainty.
>LimitedWell logic is different, when you play monopoly the rules dont change after a certain amount of play throughs.And still if not, I could have proofed for a limited amount of time that something is true with absolute certainty, that is still something that is absolutely certain.
№2720024[Quote]
>>2720002Definitely not in computer science maybe but in math in general it matters very much, since entirely different things apply to finite fields and infinite fields.
№2720036[Quote]
>>2720024how does the finitude of a field determine its operations, exactly?
№2720045[Quote]
>>2720036The one doesnt determine the other, but they both determine a unique kind of field, but the way you extend finite fields is completely different from infinite ones for example.
№2720080[Quote]
>>2720014>logic is different, when you play monopoly the rules dont change after a certain amount of play throughs.How can you be certain that it will always happen, every single time?
№2720085[Quote]
>>2720080Because then it wouldnt be monopoly anymore.
№2720088[Quote]
>>2720085Same with my proof it would then neither disporve or proof my claim.
№2720089[Quote]
>>2720045no but the set being infinite or not says nothing about the operations
>>No, a field is defined by its operations, not its elements.>Wrong a field in the algebraic sense can either have a finite amount of elements or an infinite one, therfore elements also determine the field,again, since you didnt answer the question, how does the finitude of a set prove elements also determine the field?
in the two examples here I could start with a set [A,B] and addition and functionally re-create all integers in terms of A and B
now given the length of the set S=[A, B, A+A, A+B, B+B, A+A+A …] |S| how on earth does the LENGTH of it (|S|) tell you anything about the operations?
the conclusion is correct, but the reasoning is totally absurd
№2720098[Quote]
>>2720089I am not talking about the elemtns themselve since every element can be replaced by another element symbollicaly thus individually they dont determine the field, but elements determine the field in the way that operatiosn have to have certain properties, for example in any finite field the field has characteristic p, which means applying an operation p times to the same element yields 1 (the neutral element).
№2720103[Quote]
>>2720098I meant 0 not 1.
№2720106[Quote]
>>2720088What do you mean?
№2720109[Quote]
>>2720106Since my method of doubt relies on internal logic only, if that logic was changeed it wouldnt be the method of doubt anymore therefore it couldnt make any claims about the method of doubt (or only marginally). Same goes for monopoly if the internal logic was different it wouldnt be monopoly anymore and we could only marginally infringe on the original game.
№2720165[Quote]
>>2720089* how does |S| prove elements of S determine the field?
lets say a field is determined by a set and operand(s)
whether that set is finite doesnt tell you anything about the field (the axioms, elements or operands)
>>2720098>>2720103yeah but 0 and 1 are neutral elements because 1*a=a and 0+a=a, I can create a set of playing cards and make the ace of spades the neutral element
also I'm assuming you're talking about -, for example
we can take a from S, apply a-1 a times and end up with 0
but this requires for any b<a a-b=c where c>0
now if a is the largest element in our set, and 0 the smallest, then the element a+c must exist, which would mean + and - exists, as well as infinite elements
if were working in a finite set Z/aZ (basically the modulo ring of a) then a+c=c-1 -> a=-1 (which is how the binary set from earlier worked) applying a-1 a times will still give me the neutral element
so in this case at least the length tells me nothing
№2720168[Quote]
>>2720109Hmm, you have convinced me that we can have absolute certainty about things that have very limited scopes, such as the rules of monopoly, but when it is applied to things that could be influenced by many factors such as a world beyond us, I am still sceptical
№2720182[Quote]
>>2720168This question is of a very different nature, I never claimed that that I can prove everything with absolute certainty, I only claim that it might be possible to find small islands of truth admits the vast ocean of uncertainty. I believe for example that the physical laws can never be things which we can be 100% certain about.
№2720203[Quote]
>>2720165> how does |S| prove elements of S determine the field?They dont uniquely determine the field but they play a signifikant role in determining the character and thus the overall structure.
>modulo ringmodulo 5 is a field for example, it has characteristic 5 determined by its elements (it has 5 elements).
№2720213[Quote]
>>2720203By characteristic I mean that if you add 1 five times you get 0, of course what you choose as addition and multiplication also matters.
№2720221[Quote]
>>2720165Btw can I ask you, what did/ do you study for you to have this amount of knowledge about fields?
№2720298[Quote]
>>2720182>I never claimed that that I can prove everything with absolute certainty,I thought that we were still debating that, but I was wrong.
>I only claim that it might be possible to find small islands of truth admits the vast ocean of uncertainty.Fair enough. I guess that I was confused about what your point was
№2720324[Quote]
>>2720221electrical engineering
I dont know the formal definitions for a lot of stuff
>>2720203>>2720213yeah but if I have [A,B,C,D,E] I also have five elements, but that tells me nothing about the operations of this set
№2720336[Quote]
>>2720298Well it is fairly obvious that you can never deduce the 'law of gravity from pure logic alone for example, but wasnt the last discussion really about if we can even prove with one thing with certainty and I think we can do that, just as I have mentioned.
№2720337[Quote]
>>2720336ignore the first with
№2720354[Quote]
>>2720324>electrical engineeringsick
>yeah but if I have [A,B,C,D,E] I also have five elements, but that tells me nothing about the operations of this setThere is no field with 6 elements for example, regardless what operation you choose.
№2720399[Quote]
>>2720336>the last discussion really about if we can even prove with one thing with certainty and I think we can do that, just as I have mentioned.Yes, and I agree with you, so that has been resolved
№2720409[Quote]
>>2720354isnt there just Z/6Z?
№2720426[Quote]
>>2720409It isnt a field, just a ring. Because from what I remeber there are euqations in Z/6Z where ab=0 and neither a or b are 0, but a field requires one of them to be 0.
№2720430[Quote]
>>2720399Great!
Do you want do discuss something else then?
№2720448[Quote]
>>2720438Ah btw remember when we talked about Earthbound for N64? I got my facts mixed up, I knew there was a beta for N64 where bits of gameplay survived, but I was mainly talking about SNES earthbound.
№2720459[Quote]
>>2720448I do. Heh
Have you ever played it?
№2720474[Quote]
>>2720459No, but I would only play it if I had a physical SNES copy.
№2720480[Quote]
>>2720474>I would only play it if I had a physical SNES copy.Why?
№2720490[Quote]
>>2720480Because it would be gemmy to have the rare physical SNES copy.
№2720497[Quote]
>>2720490Why not use an emulator?
№2720502[Quote]
>>2720497I want to have a physical copy of the game.
№2720538[Quote]
Okay I will go to sleep now. Good night!
№2720543[Quote]
>>2720502It's so expensive… it's not worth it
I played it on an emulator until I got stuck fighting the boss in magicant and gave up. I had mixed feelings about it because took so much time to play and it required external information to complete (the player was supposed to use a giant player's guide that came with the game to solve), that made the game less fun for me. Recently I have had been reminiscing about the game because the story and environment is so memorable and warming. It defines what makes life good
Playing it requires a long commitment that I did not have on my first run, but it is worth it
№2720550[Quote]
>>2720543Maybe I will try it some time if I get to it.
№2720557[Quote]
>>2720538Good night Rolf. Make another thread like this if you ever have deep thoughts again
>>2720550Great!
№2720559[Quote]
>>2720557I will definitely do it if something interesting comes to my mind.