1238 réponses à ce sujet

[The Twilight God]

Fixers0 wrote...

So, who shuts of the the Beam in refuse? And i don't think it's Shepard.

The Kid does. But the beam has nothing to do with the Crucible.

The Twilight God wrote...

Here is the logical deduction:


1. The Crucible docks, but is not doing anything.
2. The power junction is eliminated violently.
3. The Crucible arms itself and fires.
4. It is thus inferred that something was preventing the Crucible from firing while the power junction remained active.
5. The destruction of the power junction terminated whatever condition existed that prevented the Crucible from arming.
6. The power junction was either itself, or was powering, something that prevented the Crucible from firing.
7. In the absence of this suppressing condition the Crucible initiates the destruction of the Reapers without any direct interaction with the Crucible itself.
8. Conclusion #1: The Crucible's default function is to destroy synthetic life.
9. It has been confirmed in the very opening of this segment that the contraptions at eye level are NOT a part of the Crucible.
10. Upon the destruction of the power junction the beam running down the center of the chasm deactivates.
11. It can therefore be inferred that the power junction was either itself, or was powering, whatever it is that was generating the beam running down into the chasm.
12. The Crucible arms and fires despite the absence of this beam.
13. In both Control and Synthesis the beam remains active as the Crucible's tip ignites.
14. Conclusion #2: The beam is not a function of the Crucible itself.


Given the above facts, the Crucible can in no way be dependent upon the contraption at eye level to function as it is designed to arm automatically and operates independently of the beam. Furthermore, throughout all this we have to remember that Shepard does not flip a switch or push a button. He destroys a component of a contraption that is NOT part of the Crucible.

Please read the subject material before posting objections in this thread. Most objections made tend to have already been covered in my thesis.

Fixers0 wrote...

When Elements within the story are in conflict with it's own established lore, plot holes star arrise due to illogical events, Retcons are appearing and contrived plot devices are called for and then handwaved, isn't it safe to say that the endings were indeed veru poorly written.

Give an example.

You can't make a blanket statement about the story and provide nothing to substantiate said claims.

Fixers0 wrote...

Shepard has as much evidence that grabbing the Control prongs will kill him as shooting the Destroy conduit will kill him

That is a blatant lie.

It is explicitely conveyed to Shepard that grabbing the prongs will destroy his body. The very appearence of the prongs (high voltage electrical arcs) indicate the propability of death. And given the situation there is no reason to assume that grabbing hold of the prongs will not incapacitate Shepard in some way.

There is no such reason to expect shooting the power junction to result in death. As has been said before, stepping in front of the power junction (and going so far as to walk into an explosion) is not necessary. Shepard can shot it from the location in which he was talking to the Kid. It is the player who has to walk towards it for the sake of the developers' cinematic vision.

Fixers0 wrote...


Incorrect, here's some visual evidence:

I have already debunked this in the very thread this picture originates in a debate against the very creator of the image you posted. Not to mention I debunked it in this very thread earlier

This thread:
http://social.biowar...372/26#13680888 

Against the image's creator:
http://social.biowar...4922/7#13709755
http://social.biowar...4922/8#13722542
http://social.biowar...4922/8#13860266

Note that the creator herself is down to one last argument and I completely disprove that effectively double tapping her downed theory.

Here's just one of many errors in this debunked theory.

The Twilight God wrote...

Look at it. It has four thing sticking out the top and a hole running through the center so that the beam can run through it. It is a cylinder most likely with a hollow center. It seems whatever plans they had for it were scrapped. They took it out of high EMS when it docks, but forgot about it in low EMS. In low EMS it's still there when the Crucible docks and it lights up with it still on.

It fits within the "fingers" of the tip. It doesn't even have enough volume to account for the contraption. We can only assume it is supposed to fall off like the spheretical enclosure.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 27 août 2012 - 07:04 .

[j_rod2588]

I just can't believe people are still going off about this. People you need to move on!! There is nothing concrete unless Bioware specifically says that the IT is true, all of this is just pure speculation. If one day Bioware says that choosing anything but destroy is indoctrination, then you can pat yourself on the back for figuring it out. If not...well then you wasted a lot of time trying to make out something that was never really there in the first place. Life goes on.

[The Twilight God]

megamacka wrote...

ajb314 wrote...

I haven't posted in a while, but I just watched the "extended cut documentary" that has been making its way around the BSN (created by clevernoob). I watched the whole thing (although I barely made it through) and must say that within 5 minutes I realized once again how much better this thesis is than the IT proper (meaning the "it was all a dream" theory). If the narrator said the words "maybe", "might be", "perhaps" or "possibly" one more time I was going to scream. He also continues to use the word "plausible", despite the fact that in most cases there are possibly hundreds of plausible explanations for what is happening. He offers very little hard evidence and makes too many guesses. There was so much speculation and so much concern for what the developers intended, the narrator completely ignores the deductive process. While there was some good examination (that might actually support this thesis) I truly feel that the main IT theory is so contrived and worries far too much about what MIGHT have happened instead of examining what ACTUALLY happened. So I must reiterate my support for this theory (and thus give it a *bump*). Once again...Well done Twilight God.

What I've been saying for a long time. Clevernoob is an arrogant douche whom talk too much ****.
I think it's sad how much views / support his getting.

  I am watching it right now though, want to give him a chance at the very least. But his so called '' evidence '' are not evidence at all.... It's just laziness ( for example the corpse piles on the citadel ). He claimed something about the corpses wearing the same armor as ashley in ME1 being evidence or something lol...

  '' Harbringers beam starts from BEHIND the squad members in the low EMS instead of IN FRONT of them to avoid killing shepard ''  .... No clevernoob..... It's simply a cinematic view choice *facepalm... Beam in front of squad = wont see the squad die / reaction --> no emotion --> mad fans.

Well, he is a noob at being clever so it is understandable.

The phoenix armor bit is pretty weak. It's the same texture they use on the collector ship. I guess that was a dream too? The same texture used in the area immediately surrounding the Conduit. I guess it was all a dream before Harbinger's blast. I'm on the Dream IT thread now and it's nothing but graphical nitpicking without any foundation. Everything from bad shadowing effects, to Bioware's choice of transition effect, to reused props (like a 8M8, 1m1, etc) and even flycam footage that shows things the player is never intended to see (and cannot see w/o a flycam) in-game. It's ridiculous.

Circumstantial evidence should be used to support solid evidence. It can't stand alone. All this effort to explain how everything plays out in the context of a dream without even bothering to establish that it is a dream. Their house is built on quicksand. From what I can see, the entire basis of Dream Theory is to handwave the endings away because the people who choose to believe it can't accept the fact that there is no traditional "have my cake and eat it too" endings. Well, not unless you're renegade and hate synthetics (and even then it requires some headcanon), but the game wasn't made with the ultra renegade minority in mind.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 27 août 2012 - 08:41 .

[Ranger Jack Walker]

@mega and yet, you posted it. If you're gonna use memes, atleast use them correctly. You know what's worse than overused memes? Incorrectly overused memes.

[megamacka]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

@mega and yet, you posted it. If you're gonna use memes, atleast use them correctly. You know what's worse than overused memes? Incorrectly overused memes.

Did the entire universe fall apart now? Oh how I regret it all now. Please don't fall into a deep depression, I can't live with myself knowing that you are butthurt. How far up is that stick in your behind?

  Please relax a little. Breathe .... slowly, in and out.... 
Oh and if you don't like '' overused memes '' then perhaps the interwebs is the wrong place for you.

Modifié par megamacka, 27 août 2012 - 07:18 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

megamacka wrote...

Some of us don't believe in the random reaper starbrat that appears out of nowhere and is supposed to change our entire view of them and the galaxy in the last two minutes tho :-). I think it's a nice pic that speaks for us whom believe in this thesis. '' Don't trust in the voices in your head nor the reapers '' aka indoctrination. But I see what you mean from your interpretation.

That doesn't matter, actually, because the vast majority of players won't change their decision without starbrat anyway!

http://social.biowar...02/polls/37239/

[megamacka]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

megamacka wrote...

Some of us don't believe in the random reaper starbrat that appears out of nowhere and is supposed to change our entire view of them and the galaxy in the last two minutes tho :-). I think it's a nice pic that speaks for us whom believe in this thesis. '' Don't trust in the voices in your head nor the reapers '' aka indoctrination. But I see what you mean from your interpretation.

That doesn't matter, actually, because the vast majority of players won't change their decision without starbrat anyway!

http://social.biowar...02/polls/37239/

Without the starbrat I guess it would have been a tad more acceptable to me. No reaper trying to make me sympathize or change my mind. But I would most likely still have chosen destroy.

   The fact remains that imo control = power hungry, unsure future. And synthesis = immoral, enslavement. What the reaperz has been striving for all along.

Modifié par megamacka, 27 août 2012 - 07:15 .

[The Twilight God]

I'd like to first state: Thanks for contributing absolutely nothing to this discussion.

Yes, we get it, you choose to champion the Handwave Theroy. A close cousin to the Bad Writting Theory; twice removed from the Stupid Shepard Theory

j_rod2588 wrote...

I just can't believe people are still going off about this. People you need to move on!! There is nothing concrete unless Bioware specifically says that the IT is true, all of this is just pure speculation. If one day Bioware says that choosing anything but destroy is indoctrination, then you can pat yourself on the back for figuring it out. If not...well then you wasted a lot of time trying to make out something that was never really there in the first place. Life goes on.

No, an indoctrination attempt occuring is fact. The thesis is nothing but a desciption of what takes place and the story told. Nothing Bioware can say can change that as it's already in the game. It's already been written and released and nothing save an actual alteration to the game's narrative and events can change that. They would have to make some major changes to the endings, starting after you enter TIM's office on Cronos Station, to make them non-indoctrinated. As is, the theme and narrative dictate that indoctrination occurs in the Synthesis and Control endings. Fact.

If you disagree feel free to have a go at debunking my thesis. Until then, between you and me, it's fact. Your inability to rebute it is tantamount to your de facto agreement with it. Just like Heretic_Hanar, HYR 2.0, Ranger Jack and many others who intellectually accept it and emotionally reject it.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 29 août 2012 - 05:53 .

[Fixers0]

The Twilight God wrote...
The Kid does. But the beam has nothing to do with the Crucible.

How do you know that? where does the beam come from then?

The Twilight God wrote...
Give an example.

You can't make a blanket statement about the story and provide nothing to substantiate said claims.

Watch This it deals, with lore, obvious question to the narative, plot holes, contrivance and much more.

Modifié par Fixers0, 27 août 2012 - 07:46 .

[The Twilight God]

Fixers0 wrote...

How do you know that? where does the beam come from then?

1. I just demonstrated how I came to that conclusion in the form of a numerical list. You ignored it.
2. Obvious answer (the Citadel) is obvious. 

Fixers0 wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...
Give an example.

You can't make a blanket statement about the story and provide nothing to substantiate said claims.

Watch This it deals, with lore, obvious question to the narative, plot holes, contrivance and much more.

No, I will not watch a 1hr31min rant video.

You will either provide one example or your claim remians unsubstantiated.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 27 août 2012 - 08:12 .

[Fixers0]

The Twilight God wrote...
1. I just demonstrated how I came to that conclusion in the form of a numerical list. You ignored it.
2. Obvious answer (the Citadel) is obvious. 

One Word: supposition, you can't just invent scenario based on your interpertation and state it as objective fact.

The Twilight God wrote...
No, I will not watch a 1hr31min video.

Then why do you bother posting so much TL/TR stuff then.
Hint: you're not willing to believe to believe the actual facts.

The Twilight God wrote...
You will either provide one example or your claim remians unsubstantiated.

Or just watch the damn video!
Hint: We're in Lalaland, EG: every coherency the story had has been lost. 

ALSO, my claim was that the endings were exteremly poorly written, do you attempt to refute that?

Modifié par Fixers0, 27 août 2012 - 08:20 .

[The Twilight God]

Fixers0 wrote...

One Word: supposition, you can't just invent scenario based on your interpertation and state it as objective fact.

Supposition = hypothesis = theory = overarching framework that makes sense of observations

Is your argument that theories, in and of themselves, are inherently erroneous and cannot be used to establish a verifiable fact?

Fixers0 wrote...

Then why do you bother posting so much TL/TR stuff then.

To convey ideas.

If it's too much for you to handle there is nothing forcing you to post in this thread.

Fixers0 wrote...

*evasive comments*

Then you effectually admitting you are incapable of finding a single narrative or thematic inconsistency in the entirety of ME3. Ergo, within the present confines of our discussion ME3's story is flawless. If you wish to proceed on that note, so be it.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 27 août 2012 - 08:38 .

[Fixers0]

The Twilight God wrote...


Supposition = hypothesis = theory = overarching framework that makes sense of observations

Is your argument that theories, in and of themselves, are inherently erroneous and cannot be used to establish a verifiable fact?

No, you're inventing things up to back up your own scenarios.

The Twilight God wrote...
To convey ideas.

If it's too much for you to handle there is nothing forcing you to post on this thread.

Look who's talking, if you're not willing to accept critics then why don't you ask for your thread to be closed?

The Twilight God wrote...
Unsuported Ranting.

If the story would be flawless, then your entire thread wouldn't be neccesary.

And my that comment you simply proved that you're unwilling to accept any critcal comments, because your ow fantasy is far above such simple things as facts, here are a few examples of why Mass Effect 3's writing is garbage.


-Kinetic barriers failing to kick in.
-Metaphyscial properties of the Citadel changing.
-Characters appearing were they shouldn't be.
-Enviroments changing for no apparant reason.
-Characters surviving things they could't possible survived.
-Characters dying from things the could have easily survived.

Modifié par Fixers0, 27 août 2012 - 08:50 .

[The Twilight God]

Fixers0 wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...


Supposition = hypothesis = theory = overarching framework that makes sense of observations

Is your argument that theories, in and of themselves, are inherently erroneous and cannot be used to establish a verifiable fact?

Now, you're inventing things up to back up your own scenarios.

No. I'm asking you a question. Please answer.

Fixers0 wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...
To convey ideas.

If it's too much for you to handle there is nothing forcing you to post on this thread.

Look who's talking, if you're not willing to accept critics then why don't you ask for your thread to be closed?

I accept all honest debate.

Your reaction to my statement, which made no assumption on my part, is incongruous.

Fixers0 wrote...


-Kinetic barriers failing to kick in.
-Metaphyscial properties of the Citadel changing.
-Characters appearing were they shouldn't be.
-Enviroments changing for no apparant reason.
-Characters surviving things they could't possible survived.
-Characters dying from things the could have easily survived.

What does this have to do with the endings in respect to my thesis?

In otherwords, how do these assumptions contradict the validity of my thesis.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 27 août 2012 - 08:52 .

[Fixers0]

The Twilight God wrote...
No. I'm asking you a question. Please answer.

I just did, you're making things up,

The Twilight God wrote...
I accept all honest debate.

Except you're not willing to review the evidence i presented for unkown reason.

The Twilight God wrote...
Then we will proceed on that note.

That you're being ignorant in the face of evidence.

In otherwords, how do these assumptions contradict the validity of my thesis.

This was a response to the statement i made first about why we simply can't accept the endings were poorly written.

Modifié par Fixers0, 27 août 2012 - 08:55 .

[The Twilight God]

Fixers0 wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...
No. I'm asking you a question. Please answer.

I just did

I disagree.

"Is your argument that theories, in and of themselves, are inherently erroneous and cannot be used to establish a verifiable fact?"

Yes or No, please. Thank you.

Fixers0 wrote...
*vindictive comments removed*

Moving on.

Fixers0 wrote...

-Kinetic barriers failing to kick in.
-Metaphyscial properties of the Citadel changing.
-Characters appearing were they shouldn't be.
-Enviroments changing for no apparant reason.
-Characters surviving things they could't possible survived.
-Characters dying from things the could have easily survived.

What does this have to do with the endings in respect to my thesis?

In otherwords, how do these assumptions contradict the validity of my thesis.

Fixers0 wrote...

This was a response to the statement i made first about why we simply can't accept the endings were poorly written.

Why should I accept something that is not true? Because you demand it?

You have provided no reason for me to believe the endings are poorly written. It was my hope that you would eventually. I will not sit through an 1hr32min rant. I will not shift through 1hr31mins of ranting to pick apart some guy's youtube video. It's not your place to defend his video anyway. All I asked was that YOU provide your evidence in writting. So that I can in turn address it. This is a forum. Not a live cast video chat room.

Now please stop being evasive and playing the victim and simply answer my questions. Thank you.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 27 août 2012 - 10:18 .

[j_rod2588]

The Twilight God wrote...

I'd like to first state: Thanks for contributing ab****ely nothing to this discussion.

Yes, we get it, you choose to champion the Handwave Theroy. A close cousin to the Bad Writting Theory; twice removed from the Stupid Shepard Theory

j_rod2588 wrote...

I just can't believe people are still going off about this. People you need to move on!! There is nothing concrete unless Bioware specifically says that the IT is true, all of this is just pure speculation. If one day Bioware says that choosing anything but destroy is indoctrination, then you can pat yourself on the back for figuring it out. If not...well then you wasted a lot of time trying to make out something that was never really there in the first place. Life goes on.

No, an indoctrination attempt occuring is fact. The thesis is nothing but a desciption of what takes place and the story told. Nothing Bioware can say can change that as it's already in the game. It's already been written and released and nothing save an actual alteration to the game's narrative and events can change that. They would have to make some major changes to the endings, starting after you enter TIM's office on Cronos Station, to make them non-indoctrinated. As is, the theme and narrative dictate that indoctrination occurs in the Synthesis and Control endings. Fact.

If you disagree feel free to have a go at debunking my thesis. Until then, between you and me, it's fact. Your inability to rebute it is tantamount to your de facto agreement with it. Just like Heretic_Hanar, HYR 2.0, Ranger Jack and many others who intellectually accept it and emotionally reject it.

I'm not having a go on debunking anything, quite honestly it's a waste of time. Mass Effect 3 is a GAME. As much as I love the series, I'm not going to spend the rest of my life obsessing whether or not the ending is indoctrination. So what if I became "indoctrinated" by making the wrong choice? Is that decision going to affect my life in any way? Absolutely not! Sorry to be a party pooper, but at this point this whole indoctrination theory cult is getting a bit ridiculous.

[OblivionDawn]

Yeah but, Shepard isn't indoctrinated in ME3.

[MegaSovereign]

OP have you seen this video?

www.youtube.com/watch

[The Twilight God]

j_rod2588 wrote...

I'm not having a go on debunking anything, quite honestly it's a waste of time. Mass Effect 3 is a GAME. As much as I love the series, I'm not going to spend the rest of my life obsessing whether or not the ending is indoctrination. So what if I became "indoctrinated" by making the wrong choice? Is that decision going to affect my life in any way? Absolutely not! Sorry to be a party pooper,

Yes, it's a game and obviously your above discussing a game.  Which puts you above even visiting this forum in which all posts are about a game that isn't going to affect your life. So... exactly what was the point of your post again?

j_rod2588 wrote...

but at this point this whole indoctrination theory cult is getting a bit ridiculous.

Ah, of course, subtle trolling. Because what we find interesting in the game doesn't coincide with the things you find interesting about the game.

You're so above the pettiness of us cultist.

[Steelcan]

OblivionDawn wrote...

Yeah but, Shepard isn't indoctrinated in ME3.

. Obvious troll is obvious. Either add something worth discussion or just don't add anything

Modifié par Steelcan, 28 août 2012 - 02:36 .

[The Twilight God]

Hrothdane wrote...

I've studied symbolic logic, and that is not deduction. Deduction does not allow for inferences because it requires absolute certainty.

For the sake of argument:
1. We don't know with absolute certainty that the Crucible is doing nothing. We only know with relative certainty it appears to be doing nothing.

Relative to the player's perspective the Crucible is doing nothing. Therefore I stand by this statement.
Unless you care to elaborate on how this detail is relevant to the conclusions made.

Hrothdane wrote...

2. Descibing what happens, nothing wrong here.
3. We don't know with absolute certainty that the Crucible was not already armed.

Semantics?

Armed, in this context, refers to the event in which the docking tip ignites in a brilliant flash. After which Admiral Hackett says, "The Crucible is armed".

Hrothdane wrote...
 
4. Just because the interaction of two objects creates a reaction, you cannot assume with certainty that that reaction was intended in the design. Since the Shroud on Tuchanka distributed the genophage and the genophage cure when they were inserted, does that mean the Shroud designed for the purpose of distributing them?

I don't have to assume. The player is informed by the designer of the device.
 
A more apt question would be to ask, "If particles were loaded into the Shroud and it distributed them successfully, would that dictate the Shroud was designed for the purpose of distributing particles?" My answer: Yes.
 
Now you're probably asking yourself where do I get off changing your statement. The answer is that the Shroud was stated as being intended for that purpose. It was used prior to spread light reflecting particles, then the genophage and later to distribute the genophage cure. Now is it intended to spread the genophage cure in particular to the exclusion of all other particulates? I can't answer that even if I wasn't told what it does in-game.  I cannot make that assessment without undertaking trials with various other substances. But that's not the conclusion I asserted (i.e. that it is designed to activate only upon the detection of Shepard or organics).
 
It is thus inferred that Shepard's presence within the contraption's energy cocktail was in accordance with the overall contraption's intended purpose.
 
The only thing I inferred was that Shepard's presence within the synthesis array is a valid means to trigger it. Which, obviously, it is. If I had said, "It is inferred that Shepard's presence within the contraption's energy cocktail dictates that the device was designed to react to the presence of organics only", then you would have a case. However, I did not. So your original question is loaded.
 
I can assume with certainty that Shepard's presence within the contraption's energy cocktail was in accordance with the overall contraption's intended purpose because it does activate, he is "reaperized", dissolved and whatever it is that enacts Synthesis does perform that intended function. This isn't a speculative assumption. It happens. Synthesis occurs. We not only witness it, but we are told by its designer(s) that synthesis is what will be achieved by the device.
  

Hrothdane wrote...
 
5. Producing a conclusion based off of a conclusion: definition of induction.

 
Inductive in that there is a possibility, however remote, that the synthesis array is just conveniently placed where the Crucible will dock, has cantilevers converging upon the docking tip of the Crucible as well as encircling the beam running from the Crucible,  upon activation funnels an additional aura of energy from the Crucible through it and can cause a reaction upon the Crucible tip? Is it reasonable that this is all a coincidence? I don't think so. I don't see any other explanation especially considering the Crucible suppression effect, which I stand by as being a deductive conclusion.
 
If we were theorizing what might occur, perhaps. But we are accounting for events that have already transpired per the designers' explicit expectations. If it is inductive, I am fine with that as every theory in existence is inductive as there is nothing that voids the very possibility of another explanation. Only "God" can have that power.
 

Hrothdane wrote...
 
6 and 7: While certainty is not absolute, it is certainly high enough that you can have these two.
8. We are told almost immediately that the plans for the Crucible are "incomplete." You are assuming that the plans are complete. If the entire part of the plans mentioning the Citadel are missing, wouldn't it also stand to reason that the contraptions to link the two would be missing from the plans as well? I can even give you a real world example: I used to build furniture, and if you have ever had to build a hutch top and bottom, they come in separate boxes with separate instructions and the connection instructions are always separate. Can you make a strong case that the connection instructions should be there? Yes, but not a deductive one.
9. A given.
10. An inductive conclusion.

 
The Citadel was never intended to be mentioned. The term "catalyst" was used to prevent the Reapers from discovering that the Citadel would be used in conjunction with the Crucible. Hence even TIM did not know, despite presumable downloading the entire archive, until he acquired the information from Vendetta. It was never a matter of the Crucible scientist not having all the Crucible data. Even if it was the case, the Catalyst is not revealed to anyone until after it is already in Reaper possession.  If it was missing from the Crucible schematics it still couldn't be explained why the device was installed other than the Reapers building it.
 
Did another cycle install it? No. The notion that a previous cycle could have had the capability to install such a device, but not use the Crucible proper is problematic. The Reaper would simply remove it once the threat of the Crucible was averted. The Protheans who altered the Keepers were in cryo-stasis from the start of the war, hundreds of years before the Protheans discovered the Crucible themselves and never made contact with any other Protheans as the empire was already gone. If they did have technical knowledge of the Crucible then why didn't Vigil mention it? It's irreconcilable.
 
 My ultimate conclusion is that no species of any cycle built the synthesis array. This is deduction. There is no way anyone except the Reapers put that device there.
 

Hrothdane wrote...

11. Based upon an earlier inductive conclusion, therefore inductive.
12. Same assumption as #4
13. Inferrence => induction.

Please, throw another "deductive" proof my way. I might even dig up my old symbolic logic textbook so I can write it out in proper format.

 
See #5.
 
Although I have no problem with it inductive reasoning, I still disagree with your assessment. At least without some further elaboration on your part. Word choice is not indicative of the reality of the claim. Using the term "infer" was actually me being humble as opposed to stating, "I know".

[Steelcan]

Op, is your theory, rival to, in accordance with, or totally separate from regular (dream theory) IT?

[The Twilight God]

Steelcan wrote...

Op, is your theory, rival to, in accordance with, or totally separate from regular (dream theory) IT?

I don't think it's a dream, so it's seperate.

It all happens, but indoctrination is attempted. It's up to the player rather or not the attempt fails or succeeds.