Umineko Episode 4 Spoiler-Free General

07th Discussion
#62

I would suggest a robust definition of terms. What do we mean when we say ‘everything Battler sees is true’? Do we mean that everything he sees is as it seems, or merely that he sees it? Battler definitely hears about supernatural from other characters. What he hears may not be true, but it is true that he hears it.

We’re getting into philosophical territory here, but the witch started that when she brought up Hempel’s raven. Actually, @pik3rob, your observations on Shannon and Kanon made me think of another philosophical tool – the vacuous truth. A vacuous truth is true only because the antecedent is false.

Let me try to explain. Let’s say I make a modest claim – Ronove, I say, bake us some more cookies. I ate every cookie on my plate. Of course, Ronove has been watching me carefully. I did not eat a single cookie during our teatime. How can my claim be true?

Simple: Ronove’s cookies were still in the oven! If I wrote my claim as a condititional, you would see the trickery. If there are cookies on my plate, I ate them. But there are no cookies on my plate. The antecedent is false, so no matter the consequent, the conditional is true. But it’s true in an empty, vacuous way. An equally true statement would be if there are cookies on my plate, I did not eat them or I ate and did not eat the cookies on my plate.

Let’s make a more dramatic claim. Kanon is dead. The conditional: If there is a person named Kanon, that person is dead. But what if there is no person named Kanon? (This is what you’re stating, @pik3rob, with your blue truth: Shannon and Kanon aren’t the characters’ real names, so the red stating them as dead means nothing to their status.)

If I were Battler, and wanted to test the theory, I’d challenge the witch say ‘Kanon is alive’ in the same red. This would be a weakness in that and every red truth. If the antecedent is false, the conditional would be true, and thus could be said in red. We could comb over all the witch’s red truths again for hidden conditionals with false antecedents. In fact, doesn’t the witch issue a red truth like that in this very episode? This is my golden land. A world where magic that isn’t mine certainly cannot exist. But ‘golden land’ is an empty name (another philosophical term) and has no referent in the real world. Any claim we could make about it would be a vacuous truth. Would it not?

Of course, our host gave a bold truth in the episode 3 thread: Only one individual in this story may use the name Kanon. That is, of course, the Kanon we all know. I do not think this is inconsistent with supposing Kanon is an empty name. Only the Kanon we know can use the name Kanon. But using the name does not require it to have a referent. We use the name ‘witch’ and ‘demon,’ after all, and neither exist.

1 Like
#63

Let me tell all of you a story, about the two most important reds in all of Umineko:

image.png1280x720 1.04 MB

image.png1280x720 1.05 MB

The first one seems to show that it is possible to make subjective statements in the red.

The seeeeeeecond one seems to show that statements that are not true or false can be made in the red, after all laughter has no truth value.

This backs up our theory about Kanon and the red, right?

3 Likes
#64

I love it! Battler is incompetent was an important red truth after all! Conditional truths, vacuous truths, and statements with no truth value (expressions of feeling, commands, et al) can all be stated in red. So if we find ourselves hemmed in by the red, we have at least one tool to cut ourselves out.

Also, I quoted @Aspirety’s bold truth, but Lambadelta made a pair of red truths regarding Kanon, as well. It might be better to use those.

The only one who can claim Kanon’s name is the person himself!
A different person cannot claim his name!

There’s a conditional here. If someone can claim Kanon’s name, then it’s ‘the person himself.’ (i.e. the Kanon of our story.) But if the antecedent is false – if no one can claim his name – then this is a vacuous truth. A different person cannot claim the name Kanon is logically consistent with no one can claim the name Kanon.

Logic! It’s such fun!

#65

Kanon very much introduces himself as “the servant Kanon” in Episode 1 though.

#66

That still doesn’t mean that red’s declaring him to be dead mean he’s dead.

Saying Witches don’t exist in the red would not invalidate Maria’s existence.

PS: I can’t wait for @Aspirety to show up and tear this all apart.

#67

Oh no, I’m having fun just watching. Please, continue. :wahaha:

#68

you know, that reminds me, didn’t beatrice just say in this ep “I am the golden witch, beatrice” in red(damn, how to make colored text?) when she was having battler repeat his name in red?

so case closed, beatrice has already won. she has said she’s a witch.

#69

In the meta that may be her title, but we are positing that she has no influence over the real world.

So even if she is “the golden witch, beatrice” that does not inherently prove that magic is real.

#70

alright then, how about I run a countertheory to what you guys have been talking about. this theory will also put a damper and make things more confusing I think.

you guys suggested that since shannon and kanon arent their real names so saying one of those is dead doesnt mean the actual person/name died? yet we have the reds as said:
The only one who can claim Kanon’s name is the person himself!
A different person cannot claim his name!

therefore, here’s my blue:
kanon and shannon are their own persons with unique names only to themselves and no one else. it is also worth remembering that these nick names are based on their real names. however, you cannot claim the same for the others. in particular, most of the ushiromiya have names that are somewhat common.
“maria, george, jessica, rosa” to name some, it is entirely possible that when beatrice named these as “dead”, she means several other people who died long ago or recently. of course also for japanese, “hideyoshi and natsuhi” are common I guess and could refer to another person.
much like when she used the whole naming thing with battler, we havent verified that the others might be pretending to be dead and there was actually another person named like them that died.

so here’s folow up:
kanon and shannon are somewhat unique names therefore these can be somewhat tied only to those people. however, the others could have their own names match with other people and those people have died already. some these people might have pretended to be dead and then freely killed the others.
of course I dont mean that everyone else besides shannon and kanon are culprits/accomplice, but maybe a couple of those could be.
so I would add jessica, george, maria, rosa, eva, hideyoshi, natsuhi, rudolf, kyrie and genji to people who could be pretending to be dead and commit the crimes after the red truth beatrice said.

the rest sound somewhat unique names, but cant be too sure since im not japanese and dont know all the names. kumasawa, nanjo, gohda, krauss and kinzo dont seem typical names. and despite what beatrice kinda implied, “battler” is a pretty unique name that I havent seen anywhere else, yet at least.

also oh yeah, im using the line of attack beatrice tried on battler to deny his existence, by saying that the original battler may have died.

yeah im pulling erika’s theories regarding names to make things more hectic here.

#71

silver coooooover C’mon, post in the introductions thread first. That’s KIND OF standard procedure

#72

I believe that the reason why Battler always survives until the end is because Battler is supposed to see all the crimes. So I’ll adjust that a bit. The results of crimes and anything not within Battler’s vicinity that is proven to have happened with definitive evidence (like George’s proposal to Shannon) can be considered true. However, anything that Battler sees that contradicts reality or any claims of others that contradict reality did not actually happen. At the very least I think we can all agree that the scenes of magic didn’t happen.

I counter this! Teatime was over by the time you started eating those cookies. The cookies you ate were leftovers, and you wanted Ronove to make more. Sorry, but I have this win.

Pretty objective if I do say so myself. hiihhihihihhihihihihihihihihihihi

However, along this line of thinking, I can make a new claim. Because Beatrice made the game board and knows what happens on it, she can claim the death of any individual even before Battler or the audience figures it out, since in her head, they are indeed dead. Beatrice can claim people dead before they actually die on the game board.

Could just be a title though. I could proclaim myself “Pik3rob King of The Earth,” however I’d only be that in title only because I claimed that title to myself. I don’t actually govern upon all people on this planet yet.

I’ve thought about this, but when I think about it from a story perspective, I’d be very pissed that they could just wipe out the red truths announcing death like that, so I’m denying the possibility from my theories, even though it is rather legit.

#73

Kihihihi you caught me. Anything for another plate of these delicious cookies.

To @silvercover I will say I suspected some joker would take that tactic. ‘Rather than doubt the name of Kanon, we can doubt every other name in the story.’ I can only counter with the rules of fair play – rules like Knox’s and Chersterton’s. Such rules aren’t established by logic alone, but for the sake of giving the reader a fair shot at solving the mysteries. That’s why the culprit has to be introduced early on, and why there shouldn’t be twins or body doubles without sufficient clues or preparation.

We have reason to doubt Kanon’s name has a referent because it’s been mentioned many times already that Kanon is not his real name. When given the chance to share his real name, Kanon has either declined or been interrupted. This creates a mystery, and in a story like this any mystery aches to be solved. The longer it stands, the more his namelessness has to mean something for the story at large. Is the same true for any other character? Has any other character’s name or identity come into doubt? If so, then I will concede, and say we should look at that character just as closely. But there’s nothing to be gained by casting about willy-nilly, or saying George might not mean Ushiromiya George because there are other Georges in the world.

Well, there is one character whose name and identity has come into doubt: Ushiromiya Battler.

And one other: Beatrice herself.

We could talk more about them. I’d enjoy that very much, in fact.

1 Like
#74

Well, we know his name is Ushiromiya Battler, he is not Ushiromiya Asumu’s son, and that he is Kinzo’s grandson. So the most we have to question on his identity are, who are his parents (we can’t claim that he actually is Rudolf’s son yet), and who is his grandma (unless said in red, it can be theorized that he has a different Grandma).

#75

Ooooh nice reminder mimsy!

About Battler’s sin… I’d like to highlight some points about it.

What clues have we got to go on?

[quote=“Aspirety, post:25, topic:31”]
If it helps any, you can rest assured that the mysteries of Rokkenjima are entirely solvable from this point. Yes, that includes Battler’s sin from six years ago.[/quote]

Our biggest clue is that we have enough clues.

Alright, what clues do we have? What do we know about Battler?

  • We know that Asamu is not his biological mother, or at least if she is, they did some advanced sciency egg trading or something, as he was not born from her

  • There is another person, also named Ushiromiya Battler who was born from Asamu

  • Actually this one is debatable, Beato’s reds could have been referring to what the concept of Battler is, rather than a literal other person. Could someone check that scene?

  • There is a reason Battler did not share the information that he is not Asamu’s child

  • He might not know

  • He could be deceiving the others

Another thing regarding Battler, his birthdate.

Remember Episode 3? Go check out Chapter 17: “The Witch’s Courtroom”. Near the start of this chapter the group of five happen upon a number on the parlor door before they discover George’s corpse.

The number on the door is: 07151129

Battler notices that the first four digits could be a date in mm/dd, and that they are actually his birthday. The second digits also look like a date, so everyone goes around checking if it’s anyone’s birthday. Here is the full list of people who do not have a birthday of the 29th of November

Battler (Battler)
Rudolf (Battler)
Kyrie (Battler)
Ange (Battler)
Asumu (Battler)
Nanjo (implied by Nanjo, “I cannot think of anything”)
Kinzo (Nanjo)
Genji (Nanjo)
Eva (Eva, “It isn’t from my family”)
George (Eva, “It isn’t from my family”)
Hideyoshi (Eva, “It isn’t from my family”)
Rosa (Eva)
Maria (Eva)
Jessica (Jessica, “It’s not anyone in mine, either…”)
Krauss (Jessica, “It’s not anyone in mine, either…”)
Natsuhi (Jessica, “It’s not anyone in mine, either…”)
Kanon (Jessica)
Shannon (Jessica)
Any other servant (Jessica, “I know it for all of them”)

Wow, that’s literally everyone on the island. Battler then proceeds to think something blitheringly stupid:

image.png1280x720 894 KB

Hoooo boy, I did some rudimentary calculations, and came out with a probability of it being a coincidence (that either of the two sets of four numbers were Battler’s birthday in mm/dd or dd/mm, and then the other was a valid date in either format)

The answer was quite low: 0.5513%

That’s so low that’s it’s reasonable to assume it’s not a coincidence, right?

So a Birthday, followed by a date. I can think of three possibilites

  • A Death Date for the person whose Birth Date was written.

  • But Battler isn’t dead by this point, and we see him die, well before this date. Maybe talking about someone else with that birthday?

  • A Birth Date of someone important to the case

  • someone important to the case, who is not among the 18 (or Ange, or any other servants)… someone important, not among the 18… food for thought.

  • A date that is meant to be significant for the person whose Birth Date was written. (so Battler)

  • Was battler hiding something from us? Or did he genuinely not recognize the date?

All three of those either points towards this “other Battler” or points toward Battler hiding something from us.

Cute. That’s all I’ve got, I ought to go to bed soon after all.

#76

They could be lying about birth dates… If it was Eva, for example, of course she wouldn’t admit it.

#77

I think it’d arise a ton more suspicion on Eva if she lied about her birthday and then one of the other 3 actually ended up knowing it, so I see no reason to lie about it. They don’t know what the numbers relate to, so lying about your birthday would be disadvantageous to driving off suspicion.

#78

Indeed, eva is apparently 50 years old yet still looks pretty hot? Even rudolf, who should be younger than her, actually looks older.

#79

Tricky, tricky. If someone among the group is lying or misremembering, then it could be anyone’s birthdate. But we can’t cast about willy-nilly, right? Whoever it is, there should be some reason their birthdate is listed in connection with Battler’s.

It could be Ange’s – and then the two dates would be the birthdates of Rudolf’s two children. But Battler would remember that date. It was the date he spent with his precious little sister, despite the bad blood with his father, for six years.

It could be the date of Kyrie’s miscarriage. Then the two dates would be when one of Rudolf’s children was born, and the other one died. This line of thought is putting a lot of heat on Rudolf and Kyrie, though, isn’t it? What would those dates mean to
the culprit?

Let me walk you through one of my more wild theories. What if Battler isn’t the only one with his birthdate? When the original Beatrice died in childbirth, what if she had twins, a boy and a girl? Kinzo had no use for a boy, believing the girl to be Beatrice’s reincarnation, so he gave the boy to Rudolf to raise. Secretly, Asumu had a miscarriage as well, and this allowed her to save face and still raise a child of Ushiromiya blood.

So the first birthdate could be not (just) Battler’s, but Beatrice II’s. (Let’s call her Beato.) The second date could be Beato’s death.

However, there’s a serious problem with this theory. Beato died in 1967, when Rosa was a child. If Battler is Beatrice’s son and Beato’s twin, he should be a lot older. So maybe he isn’t Beatrice’s son, but Beato’s? If Beato had a child on the year that she died, in 1986, her child would be …

Hey, how old is Battler, again?

#80

oh yeah, forgot to say it, but I loved how by the ending of the question arcs, almost none of the solutions presented were correct. just when you think you have made good progress in figuring out several of umineko’s mysteries with all those weird logic, lambda just dashes all of it in an instant.

to be honest, I would have loved to see battler’s reaction if lambda did it directly on his face.

#81

Battler is 18 years old.