1. When Obito and Kakashi awakened the Mangekyou Sharingan, did their eyes created a completely different space inside their eyes, during when Rin got killed?
2. If both Kamui eyes are destroyed, then does it mean that The Kamui world will be removed and will never exist? EXAMPLE, if Karin is still inside the Kamui world while both of the eyes are destroyed, then it means that world will be removed like its nothing more, is that true, and the people inside like Karin will never exist?
Nope the nature of universes by the laws of quantum mechanics state that all possible universe exist you yourself are just tuned into one of them. The kami thing probably just lets them warp to another dimension in which possesors of the eyes are omnipotent. Meaning once the eyes go away the universe is still there the bridge between them is gone though
But This a manga and I doubt Kishi knows quantum mechanics. :yeah:
Don't think it would be removed, but she would just be stuck in there since there is no one able to get her back? And i don't think it's a dimension created by Obito, but rather a dimension accesable by this certain jutsu. A jutsu that is able to create dimensions is rather OP.
Don't think it would be removed, but she would just be stuck in there since there is no one able to get her back? And i don't think it's a dimension created by Obito, but rather a dimension accesable by this certain jutsu. A jutsu that is able to create dimensions is rather OP.
So does it mean that there is a lot of dimensions? It doesn't make any sense, but there are only one world, namely the real world. It has to be created when you gained something powerful.
Not so short answer.
Eternalism is a major theme in Kurt Vonnegut’s novel, Slaughterhouse-Five. The Tralfamadorians, an alien species in the novel, have a four-dimensional sight and can therefore see all points in time simultaneously. They explain that since all moments exist simultaneously, everyone is always alive. The hero, Billy Pilgrim, lives his life out of sequence, which, among other things, means that his point of death occurs at a random point in his life rather than at the end of it.Eternalism also appears in the comic book series Watchmen by Alan Moore. In one chapter, Dr. Manhattan explains how he perceives time. Since past, present, and future events all occur at the "same time" for him, he speaks about them all in the present tense. For example, he says "Forty years ago, cogs rain on Brooklyn" referring to an event in his youth when his father throws old watch parts out a window. His last line of the series is "Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends."Eternalism also embodies the Party's ideal in George Orwell's 1984, viz.: "He who controls the present controls the past; he who controls the past controls the future."Eternalism takes its inspiration from physics, especially the Rietdijk-Putnam argument, in which the relativity of simultaneity is used to show that each point in the universe can have a different set of events that are in its present moment. According to Presentism this is impossible because there is only one present moment that is instantaneous and encompasses the entire universe.Some philosophers also appeal to a specific theory which is "timeless" in a more radical sense than the rest of physics, the theory of quantum gravity. This theory is used, for instance, in Julian Barbour's theory of timelessness.[19] On the other hand, George Ellis argues that time is absent in cosmological theories because of the details they leave out.Previously, it was noted that people tend to have very different attitudes towards the past and the future. This might be explained by an underlying attitude that the future is not fixed, but can be changed, and is therefore worth worrying about. If that is correct, the flow of time is perhaps less important to our intuitions than an open, undetermined, future. In other words, a flow-of-time theory with a strictly determined future (which nonetheless does not exist at the present) would not satisfy common-sense intuitions about time. If indeterminism can be removed from flow-of-time theories, can it be added to Eternalist theories? Regarding John G. Cramer’s transactional interpretation, Kastner (2010) "proposed that in order to preserve the elegance and economy of the interpretation, it may be necessary to consider offer and confirmation waves as propagating in a “higher space” of possibilities.[17]In his discussion with Albert Einstein, Karl Popper argued against determinism:The main topic of our conversation was indeterminism. I tried to persuade him to give up his determinism, which amounted to the view that the world was a four-dimensional Parmenidean block universe in which change was a human illusion, or very nearly so. (He agreed that this had been his view, and while discussing it I called him "Parmenides".) I argued that if men, or other organisms, could experience change and genuine succession in time, then this was real. It could not be explained away by a theory of the successive rising into our consciousness of time slices which in some sense coexist; for this kind of "rising into consciousness" would have precisely the same character as that succession of changes which the theory tries to explain away. I also brought in the somewhat obvious biological arguments: that the evolution of life, and the way organisms behave, especially higher animals, cannot really be understood on the basis of any theory which interprets time as if it were something like another (anisotropic) space coordinate. After all, we do not experience space coordinates. And this is because they are simply nonexistent: we must beware of hypostatizing them; they are constructions which are almost wholly arbitrary. Why should we then experience the time coordinate—to be sure, the one appropriate to our inertial system—not only as real but also as absolute, that is, as unalterable and independent of anything we can do (except changing our state of motion)? The reality of time and change seemed to me the crux of realism. (I still so regard it, and it has been so regarded by some idealistic opponents of realism, such as Schrödinger and Gödel.)When I visited Einstein, Schilpp's Einstein volume in The Library of Living Philosophers had just been published; this volume contained a now famous contribution of Gödel's which employed, against the reality of time and change, arguments from Einstein's two relativity theories. Einstein had come out in that volume strongly in favour of realism. And he clearly disagreed with Gödel's idealism: he suggested in his reply that Gödel's solutions of the cosmological equations might have "to be excluded on physical grounds".Now I tried to present to Einstein-Parmenides as strongly as I could my conviction that a clear stand must be made against any idealistic view of time. And I also tried to show that, though the idealistic view was compatible with both determinism and indeterminism, a clear stand should be made in favour of an "open" universe—one in which the future was in no sense contained in the past or the present, even though they do impose severe restrictions on it. I argued that we should not be swayed by our theories to give up realism (for which the strongest arguments were based on common sense), though I think that he was ready to admit, as I was, that we might be forced one day to give it up if very powerful arguments (of Gödel's type, say) were to be brought against it. I therefore argued that with regard to time, and also to indeterminism (that is, the incompleteness of physics), the situation was precisely similar to the situation with regard to realism. Appealing to his own way of expressing things in theological terms, I said: if God had wanted to put everything into the world from the beginning, He would have created a universe without change, without organisms and evolution, and without man and man's experience of change. But He seems to have thought that a live universe with events unexpected even by Himself would be more interesting than a dead one.
Whoever read that whole of text...i cant even...trololololol
Two things probably happened when obito and kakashi awakened MS.
- The dimension was created when the doujutsu awakened. OR
- The dimension had always been in existence but when their doujutsu awakened they were given easy access to it. This means that theoretically a person without kamui can go to the dimension if they figure out how to get there.
One thing is for sure the kamui dimension's existance is independent of kakashi and obito's MS. Because both kakashi and obito are unaware of what is happening in the dimension while they are in the real world unless either they sent something to the dimension or one of them is in the dimension and the other can see through his counterpart's eye. Therefore if both eyes are destroyed the dimension will not be destroyed but rather the person sent there will have almost no chance of escape.
Two things probably happened when obito and kakashi awakened MS.
- The dimension was created when the doujutsu awakened. OR
- The dimension had always been in existence but when their doujutsu awakened they were given easy access to it. This means that theoretically a person without kamui can go to the dimension if they figure out how to get there.
One thing is for sure the kamui dimension's existance is independent of kakashi and obito's MS. Because both kakashi and obito are unaware of what is happening in the dimension while they are in the real world unless either they sent something to the dimension or one of them is in the dimension and the other can see through his counterpart's eye. Therefore if both eyes are destroyed the dimension will not be destroyed but rather the person sent there will have almost no chance of escape.
Good explanation... However, you said something about a person without MS can go to the dimension if they figure out how to do it, so in other words, shinobi or people cannot do it unless you gained something powerful like Kamui. The world and dimension is a big difference.
I think the dimension existed before Obito/Kakashi awoke MS. If both eyes are destroyed, the dimension will remain, but there will be no portal to and from it.
I think the dimension existed before Obito/Kakashi awoke MS. If both eyes are destroyed, the dimension will remain, but there will be no portal to and from it.
I want to read more about it...
