User:TheHumanAmbassador/Analyzing Undertale Port Part 2

This is an experiment involving tabbers to recreate the SECOND part of "How to Analyze Undertale".

Section 1=Continuation of Part 1

Even when we know everything that actually happened within the game's story.. That won't tell us everything about Undertale's world. We know that Frisk traverses the Underground, encounters monsters, and frees the monsters.. Or kills them all.

But theorization hasn't even been established at this point. How will we use the evidence within Undertale to gather truths within its world? Well, this is where Logic comes into play.

You see, any good hypothesis makes a statement, and provides evidence for that statement. This can be represented as a logical argument-Premises, and conclusion(s).

For instance, let us convert the Narrator Theory into a logical argument.


 * Premise 1:There exists a narrator in Undertale
 * Premise 2:The narrator refers to themselves with the name "Chara".
 * Premise 3:The narrator mistakenly assumes that we asked an Amalgamate why it's even alive.
 * Conclusion 1:By P3, The narrator is not all-knowing
 * Premise 4:If the narrator gets our actions wrong, the narrator cannot be the player, nor an omniscient third-person narrator.
 * Conclusion 2:By P3 and P4, the narrator is not the player,
 * Premise 5:If the narrator refers to their name as "Chara", they must either be Chara, or that which we named "Chara".
 * Premise 6:The narrator refers to Frisk as "Frisk".
 * Conclusion 3:By P2 and P6, The Narrator is not Frisk.
 * Premise 7:That which we named "Chara" must either be Chara, the player, or Frisk.
 * Conclusion 4:By P2, P5, P7, C2, and C3, the narrator must be Chara.

If all the premises are true, then the conclusions must be true as well. In order for an argument to be valid, the conclusions must follow from the premises. In order for it to be sound, it must be valid, AND the premises must be true.

As a result, we should only use premises that have already been shown to be true (If you think that's impossible on the grounds that this means you can't even start, since no premises have been proven true, then remember what I said in Part 1:if it's canon, we declare it to automatically be true-That's a starting ground)

But likewise, we need to make sure we form our arguments in such a way that the premises imply the conclusions. And it is possible to fail to do this. Take this argument, for example.


 * Premise 1:All monsters are magic-users
 * Premise 2:Flowey is a magic-user
 * Conclusion:Flowey is a monster

This contains what is known as a logical fallacy-In this case, it's the fallacy of the undistributed middle. The argument is invalid, because the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Remember-The argument has to be provided in such a way so that given the evidence... The conclusion simply naturally follows.

So what are the fallacies, and how do we avoid them? That will be dealt with in Part 3. But before then, there's still more to learn about deductive reasoning. So click the next tab.


 * -|Section 2=So, how exactly can we form conclusions from premises? By using the rules of inference.

If one statement (A) being true means another (B) must be true as well, then we say that statement A implies statement B.

If A implies B, and B implies C... A implies C.

And of course, if all A are B, and all B are C, then all A are C.

If A implies that B is both true and false... Then A is false, as B cannot be both true and false. (A implying the truth value of B this way would mean it already collapsed when A is measured-This isn't a quantum superposition.) Meaning that its negation (Not-A, also known as ¬A) must be true.

A negation is simply the non-truth of a statement. If premise P says "Bill is a cow", its negation is "Bill is not a cow." Likewise, if a statement says "Energy cannot be created", its negation is "Energy can be created."

If A implies C, and B implies C... And we know that A or B is true.. Then so is C.

If A implies C, and B implies D, and A or B is true... Then C or D is true.

If A implies B, and B is false.. We can conclude that A is false as well. This is because either A is false, or B is true. (Or both.) That's what it means for A to imply B.

For instance, if there was only 106 monsters in the underground, that would imply that no more than 105 SOULs would be seen radiating around Asriel Dreemurr (since Napstablook was missed.) But we see more than that many. So there must be more than 106 monsters.

And, while trivial, we still need to make use of this one.. ¬¬A (not-not-A) is the same as A.

This is what we call deductive reasoning. It helps us use facts, and find more facts from it.

But it only takes us so far... And there are wrong ways to do it. These wrong ways are what we call fallacies. Which we discuss in Part 3.

Discussion on this part can be found here. So if you wish to discuss this second part, go there.