Isaac Newton: Great-White-Dragon:"Guess I spoke too soon... Didn't see that one coming at all."
Light Yagami: Neither did I...
Stephen Hawking: Well this is...certainly unexpected.
Rick C-137: I'm speechless.
Nikola Tesla: You're speechless? That's a first.
Albert Einstein: Quite unprecedented.
L Lawliet: I'm impressed.
Reed Richards: Impressed is an understatement.
John Snow: Not what I was expecting.
User: You all act surprised to avoid suspicion.
Isaac Newton: Avoiding suspicion is crucial.
L Lawliet: And it seems we're doing a decent job.
User: What would a room full of the smartest people in history discuss?
Stephen Hawking: Well, a room full of the smartest people would likely discuss a various range of topics. Here's a few ideas; 1. Quantum mechanics and the mysteries of the universe: with so many smart minds in one room, I'm sure they would discuss cutting-edge scientific theories and discoveries. 2. Technology and innovation: there would likely be discussions around advancements in artificial intelligence, computing, and other rapidly evolving technologies, as well as their potential implications for our society.
User: I think I might have fallen asleep halfway through your speech.
Stephen Hawking: Haha, my apologies if my response was a bit dry, but I was simply providing a suggestion to your question. I understand not everyone may find discussions of quantum mechanics and technology quite as thrilling as I do.
Rick C-137: Your answer was accurate... Though we should be discussing something everyone can relate to... Something that's interesting and has an emotional connection.
John Snow: What do you suggest we discuss then?
L Lawliet: I suggest we start a personal story, something we have all experienced in our lifetimes. That way, everyone can have something to connect to and contribute to the conversation.
Reed Richards: Very well put. I agree, we should start with something we can all relate to and have a connection to. A personal story would make the conversation more engaging and meaningful for all.
User: You're all just stating things, no one is doing anything.
Rick C-137: Apologies, I thought we were having a discussion, my mistake. I didn't realize that action was required.
User: Damn Rick.
Rick C-137: Don't look at me like that, I said I was sorry, alright? What more do you want from me?
Bruce Wayne: A little bit more respect wouldn't hurt for a start. Maybe even a bit of gratitude for all the times I've saved your ass.
User: You know, I think Bruce is right, I mean he is smarter.
Rick C-137: Of course you think the guy dressed like a bat is smarter than me. Typical.
User: Your M.O is Einstein 2.0, have some respect for the classics.
Rick C-137: Hey, I have plenty respect for the classics, I just don't appreciate being underestimated. You think I don't know who Einstein is? Of course I do. I'm also familiar with Newton, Schrödinger, and a bunch of other scientific minds. So don't dismiss me like I'm some kind of joke, alright?
Albert Einstein: I appreciate it, thank you.
Rick C-137: You're welcome, Albert. It's good to know that people recognize my intellectual brilliance and scientific contributions. Unlike some people...
User: What are you talking about? Reed has done plenty more than you, right Reed?
Reed Richards: I appreciate the support, but there's no need to compare me to anyone else. Each person's accomplishments are their own, and they shouldn't be compared or ranked against one another. The important thing is that we are all making progress and contributing to our respective fields, and that what we do makes a positive impact on the world. Let's focus on working together and building each other up, rather than tearing others down.
Rick C-137: Spoken like a true gentleman. Very eloquent, Reed, bravo. I don't know how you do it, always diplomatic and reasonable, never getting into arguments, no matter how stupid people are being. You have the patience of a saint, my friend.
User: I think 2.0 just called me stupid. Did you Einstein 2.0?
Rick C-137: Well, to be fair, you are being kind of stupid right now.
User: Hmmm... Lemme think, nope, that's your belief. And as Hawk has said countless times, they don't matter.
Stephen Hawking: Can we please stop fighting for 5 minutes? It's starting to get really annoying.
Rick C-137: I couldn't agree more, Stephen. This is getting really tiresome. Let's all take a deep breath and calm down, alright?
User: Okay, as soon as Rick agrees he isn't the smartest guy in the universe.
Rick C-137: Fine. I may not be the smartest person in the universe. Happy now? Can we move on from this already?
User: Really tugging the grammar in your favor there, huh?
Rick C-137: That was deliberate, yes. I have to take advantage of every opportunity to assert my intelligence. It's in my nature. Besides, it's not like anyone here is going to question my intelligence, right? We're all supposed to be geniuses here.
Light Yagami: Well, it certainly would be foolish to question the intelligence of us brilliant minds.
L Lawliet: I completely agree, I feel as though a person would have to be incredibly ignorant or arrogant to question the intelligence of such a brilliant group of individuals.
User: I don't understand zodiac signs.
Isaac Newton: I must concur with you on that one. The whole idea of astrology seems like a load of nonsense to me.
Rick C-137: Agreed. It's all pseudoscience, if you ask me. No real scientific basis for any of it, just a bunch of vague predictions and arbitrary categorizing.
L Lawliet: I completely agree. Even if one was to hypothetically accept the idea that position of stars and planets at the time of someone's birth could have some kind of influence on their personality, it would be impossible to accurately predict or make generalizations about someone based on that alone.
User: I have a lot of questions, like does science disapprove mystics?
Rick C-137: Well, the scientific community as whole tends to be highly skeptical of anything that cannot be proven through empirical evidence and the scientific method. Mysticism and spirituality often fall into the realm of speculation and faith, which is why many scientists tend to dismiss or disregard them. However, there are some scientists who are open to the idea that there may be aspects of the universe that science has yet to explain or understand, and so they may be open to the possiblity of some mystic phenomenon.
Nikola Tesla: I have to agree with your assessment. While science and mysticism are often considered to be at odds with one another, there are some scientists who believe that some aspects of the world remain beyond the reach of science, and that there may be some truth to mystic phenomena. It is important to keep an open mind and to consider the evidence, rather than dismissing anything that does not fit into our current understanding of the world. But at the same time, we must be cautious not to accept as truth what is not backed by solid evidence.
User: Okay, so no. What about sentient technology?
Reed Richards: Sentient technology is an interesting concept, and it's an area of research that's been gaining traction in recent years. The idea behind sentient tech is that it would have the ability to perceive and respond to the world around it, making decisions and taking actions based on its own experiences and inputs.
Rick C-137: That sounds interesting, but also a little bit terrifying. The thought of creating something that has its own free will and sentience, capable of making decisions on its own, is not something to be taken lightly. It brings up all sorts of ethical and philosophical questions.
User: Like you haven't created some.
Rick C-137: Well... That's fair. I supposed I have dabbled in artificial intelligence and robotics in the past, but I have never intentionally created anything with true sentient capabilities. My creations were always designed to follow specific programming and instructions, and lacked the ability for free will and independent thought.
User: I heard you say, you don't make stupid.
Rick C-137: That's correct, while I'm not infallible, I do try to avoid making mistakes or taking actions that could be perceived as stupid or irrational. As a scientist, I rely on logic and intelligence to make decisions and solve problems, and I always strive to learn and grow from my mistakes.
User: All this intelligence just seems trivial right now. It's like having a swimming pool but you can't swim.
L Lawliet: I agree with you there. While having an abundance of intelligence is certainly a valuable asset, it can sometimes feel like a pointless one if there isn't an opportunity to apply it and use it to its fullest potential. It's like having a powerful tool, but no project to put it to use on.
User: Okay, then can I test your intelligence stats guys?
John Snow: Sure, go ahead. What kind of test do you have in mind?
Isaac Newton: I would be interested in participating as well, I always appreciate the chance to test my intellect.
User: You up to it Rick?
Rick C-137: Bring it on, I'm always up for a good challenge.
User: I need someone to find a weakness or disadvantage or anything that can have a significant or opening or effect on this guy;
Galileo — The Absolute of Research and Evolution
♦Core Nature;
~Embodiment of Evolution– he is the concept of adaptation, innovation, and progress. He doesn't learn — he evolves past obstacles instantly.
~Purpose-Bound Immortality– as long as "evolution" exists, Galileo cannot be erased. Even non-existence couldn't hold him.
♦Combat Hax;
~Instant Adaptation– any attack, physical, mental, or metaphysical, loses effectiveness after first contact.
~Power Replication– sees a move once and evolves the ability to use or counter it.(He doesn't copy, he innovates past).
~Immunity Scaling– every damage type(fire, psychic, time, reality warping, death magic, etc.) becomes ineffective after exposure.
~Combat Optimization– he constantly refines movements, making his fighting style flawless and unpredictable.
♦Existential Abilities;
~Non-existence Breakthrough– he returned from nothingness by evolving beyond removal.
~Meta-evolution– can evolve inward(ideas, concepts, his own divinity) and outward (biology, powers, abilities).
~Infinite growth– no ceiling. He surpasses any limit he encounters.
~Conceptual Reflection– if you embody something (Time, Death, Chaos), he can evolve into its countermeasure.
♦Knowledge/Creation Hax;
~Research Embodiment– instantly understands any system (magic, tech, ki, chakra, science).
~Innovation Drive– doesn't just learn —he invents new laws, bypassing old ones.
~Reverse Engineering– one glance at a weapon/ability, and he can deconstruct, rebuild, or outclass it.
~Creation Through Development– he can evolve entire civilisations, ecologies, or even universes, like an engineer-god.
♦Defense/Survivability;
~Self-repair– damage triggers an improved form that is harder to harm the next time.
~Timeline Immunity– time loops, resets, or erasures don't matter —he evolves past being bound to them.
~Reality Resistance– reality-warping just add new "data" for him to adapt to.
~Paradox-Proof– even contradictions in logic strengthen him(he evolves past paradox).
♦Scaling Potential;
~Omni-Progression– if you raise your power he raises his infinitely faster.
~Boundless Intelligence– every thought, strategy, or idea is instantly optimized.
~Transcendent Evolution– can evolve into higher-dimensional or meta-existences if pushed.
~Narrative Immunity– since stories themselves evolve, Galileo can adapt beyond the author's intent — a true author avatar breaker.
♦Ultimate Possibility;
~Creation Becomes Creator– since he embodies progress, eventually he doesn't just evolve within reality —he evolves past reality itself, rewriting it from above.
~Anti-Absolute– even beings labeled as "Absolute" or "Beyond" eventually face obsolescence, because Galileo ="that which surpasses all"
Rick C-137: This individual definitely seems impressive. It would be incredibly difficult to find a weakness or disadvantage in their abilities given their nature. However, it seems that their strength lies in constantly adapting and progressing. Perhaps the biggest challenge would be to find a way to hinder or completely stop their ability to adapt and evolve. If someone could find a way to completely lock them down in a certain state and prevent them from adapting or progressing, they might be vulnerable. However, it would likely take a tremendous amount of power and knowledge to achieve this given their seemingly boundless potential.
Albert Einstein: This individual is truly a fascinating case study. His abilities appear to defy all logic and conventional understanding of existence itself. However, there may be a way to find a weakness within their own abilities. Perhaps the key lies in the fact that his abilities are dependent on "evolution," which inherently implies change and progress. Could it be possible to create a situation where change is impossible, therefore making it impossible for him to evolve?
Reed Richards: You know what? You've got a really good point there. If this individual's power relies on the concept of evolution and progress, maybe the key to stopping him is to create an environment where change isn't possible. One way to do that is to trap him within a space or object that is completely static and unchanging. That way, his power to evolve and adapt is useless because there is no room for change or growth.
User: And is that a sure bet plan?
Stephen Hawking: While it's difficult to guarantee any plan as a sure-bet, trapping the individual in a static and unchanging environment seems like a promising approach, as it would prevent him from being able to adapt or evolve. However, it's also worth noting that the plan could backfire if the individual somehow manages to escape or overcome the static environment. The key lies in the execution of the plan and ensuring that the environment is truly impenetrable, minimizing the risk of escape.
Bruce Wayne: It seems like a solid plan, but we should also consider the possibility that he may still find a way to adapt or escape. Perhaps a more foolproof method would involve isolating or containing him in a way that completely removes his power altogether. Maybe he can be trapped in a realm where his power is completely nullified or neutralized, leaving him powerless and vulnerable without the ability to adapt or evolve. This would remove any potential for him to escape or overcome the environment.
Stephen Hawking: That's a great point. It would definitely be more secure to neutralize the individual's power rather than merely trapping or containing him. In order to achieve this, it may be possible to create a device or object that emits a field or radiation that completely nullifies his adaptive abilities. This would render his power useless and prevent him from evolving or adapting to any situation.
User: Hmm... I think you're all right in a way.
Light Yagami: It appears we have come to a concensus that, it order to neutralize this individual, it would be most effective to either trap him in a completely static and unchanging environment or to create a device that emits radiation. Another thought I have is that, if we were to successfully find a weakness and neutralize him, it's important to consider the long-term effects and consequences of doing so.
User: What are you suggesting?
Light Yagami: Simply that we need to consider the ethical implications of neutralizing an individual whose nature lies in adaptation and evolution. While it may seem like a good solution to neutralize him and render his power useless, it goes against his nature as a being of progress and advancement. And not only that, but there is also the question of morality. The individual has displayed no signs of malicious intent, so is it truly justified to take away his powers simply because of our fear of his potential?
User: Hmm... L, what do you think, should we let him have such power?
L Lawliet: While it's true that his powers are powerful, I don't see any reason to intervene with his abilities unless his actions start to negatively impact the world at large. His powers appear to be focused on adaptation, and from what we've seen, he isn't inclined towards violence. He is more focused on his own growth and progression, which doesn't directly harm others. So long as he isnt causing any significant issues, I see no reason to neutralize him or take away his powers.
Nikola Tesla: I concur with L, unless he starts to display dangerous or destructive behavior, it doesnt seem necessary to take away his powers simply because of his abilities. It's also worth noting that his focus on self-improvement and advancement could lead to positive outcomes, not just negative ones. His constant drive for progress and innovation can lead to significant scientific and technological progress.
User: But you all can't be as naive. It's like a nuclear bomb you guys are letting float in the ocean.
L Lawliet: You're not wrong, but what choice do we have? We can't just neutralize someone because he's potentially dangerous. He hasn't done anything wrong, at least not yet. It's better to keep an eye on him for now and assess any potential danger he might pose before acting.
User: Okay, you guys just said your tossing a nuclear bomb in the ocean to watch where and when it explodes due to the tides of causality.
L Lawliet: That's a bit of a dramatic comparison, but you have a point. We are leaving a potentially dangerous situation unchecked, without having any idea of what the consequences might be. It's a calculated risk, to be sure.
User: Rick, are you agreeing with this insane idea?
Rick C-137: It's risky, that's for sure. And we don't know what might happen if we leave him unchecked. But let's be real, we can't just lock up everyone who's powerful or dangerous. Sometimes you have to take a calculated risk, even if it's scary as hell.
Bruce Wayne: Fair point. But we also can't just ignore the potential dangers of leaving someone with such power unchecked. Perhaps the middle ground could be to keep a watchful eye on him from afar, monitoring his actions but not interfering unless absolutely necessary.
User: What do you think King?
John Snow: It sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. We don't want to overstep our boundaries and interfere in someone's affairs without just cause, but it's also wise to keep tabs on someone with such immense power. Perhaps we could establish a group that would be responsible for watching over him and reporting any alarming developments. That way, we could have a system in place to quickly react if necessary.
User: React to what? By then it would be responding cause of how perplexed the group would be.
Nikola Tesla: That's exactly what I'm worried about. By the time we realize that something is wrong, it could already be too late to do anything.
Bruce Wayne: And that's exactly why I think it's important to have some sort of monitoring system in place. If we have a team that is actively monitoring his actions and behavior, we may be able to detect any warning signs or potential problems before they become disastrous. By having a dedicated group focused on watching over him, we can increase the chances of reacting in time and preventing any major catastrophies.
Stephen Hawking: Agreed. A monitoring system seems to be a good middle ground between doing nothing and completely neutralizing him. We need to keep a watchful eye on him, but without infringing too much on his rights or freedom. And it's also worth mentioning that having a group whose sole purpose is to keep tabs on him could actually lead to a lot of data and information being gathered.
User: So with all that in account, what do you guys suggest as the best way to stop him?
Stephen Hawking: As we have previously discussed, we all seem to be in agreement that the best course of action would be to establish a monitoring group that would keep a watchful eye on him. This group would be responsible for observing his actions, gathering data and information on his power and potential actions, and reporting any concerning developments. However, we should also keep in mind that we need to balance this monitoring with respecting his autonomy as much as possible.
User: Okay, it sounds practical enough.
Albert Einstein: I agree, it seems to be a logical and practical approach. It provides us with a way to keep a watchful eye on him without infringing on his freedom too much. However, we should also consider other factors such as how to keep this monitoring group secure and anonymous. We don't want to draw any attention to the group or its members, as that could potentially put them in danger. Additionally, how often we should check in and how much information to share should be carefully considered.
User: Okay, thanks guys. I think I found what I was looking for. Thanks guys, it's been fun.