Pinkie Pie Could Exist If She Wanted To

WARNING: My arguments are not, I repeat, are NOT suitable for anybody and shouldn’t be read at all. Please read no further than the full stop at the end of this sentence.INTRODUCTIONThank you to MassiveDump for allowing me the chance to debate MLP and perhaps be a part of another 1,000,000 view debate! When I initially saw this debate and decided to accept it, I wondered what approach my opponent might take. I began researching Pinkie Pie (who is, of course, my favourite pony) and her supposed instances of breaking the 4th wall. Of course, I didn’t expect quantum physics to be introduced, but I suppose that only makes it more interesting.So, let us begin.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CLARIFICATIONMy opponent’s entire argument is based on us accepting two premises.1) That if we accept that ‘unobserved objects exist in ‘superposition’ states; that is to say they exist in two positions simultaneously, we should accept that there exist infinite universes and that within at least one of these universes, Pinkie Pie, the animated anthropomorphic pony of the show My Little Pony exists.2) That Pinkie Pie can indeed break the 4th wall and that that indicates she has the ability to traverse, Doctor Who-style, the aforementioned infinite universes at will, including being able to travel into our own reality.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------COUNTER-ARGUMENTSI will begin my counter arguments by focusing on the first premise...The Many-Worlds Interpretation and Schrödinger's ponyMy opponent’s argument that there exist infinite universes is a misrepresentation of the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics and clutches heavily at straws. This interpretation of quantum mechanics does not suggest that there exist ‘infinite’ universes, only that all possible universes exist. That is, that every possible reality that could exist, does exist. This, while easily mistaken to mean the same thing, is in fact quite different. If something is impossible (that is, completely and utterly defies the laws of every possible reality) than it doesn’t not exist in any universe or any reality. To suggest otherwise means that in one reality, human beings have custard for blood, that in another reality, Hitler is God and in another, my opponent is being anally raped by an elephant with a flaming barbed penis right now. And now. And now. And now.If, my opponent indeed wants to argue that every reality imaginable exists and not just every physically possible reality, he must concede that in some other reality he is actually drinking a bucket of sperm samples collected from the residents of a retirement village rather than doing this debate.The difference between breaking the 4th wall and being ‘cartoony.’The laws of reality do not necessarily apply to cartoons or any fictional world but it is actually rare that a character breaks the proverbial 4th wall. The best example of a character who routinely breaks the 4th wall is Deadpool. Deadpool often speaks directly to the reader, interacts and observes things like thought bubbles and page borders and various other shenanigans. Warner Brothers characters often broke the wall; Elmer Fudd would often turn and speak directly to the viewer (“shh, I’m hunting wabbits”). The 4th wall, as far as I understand, is when a character interacts with the audience as with my above examples. Pinky Pie does not interact with the audience. Instead, she is merely interacting with the cartoon universe she exists in on a greater level than anyone else does. In the ‘Hey, that’s what I said’ example, she is responding to Twilight Sparkles voice-over. Other instances of her looking directly into ‘the camera’ have been explained by one of the people who work on the show (http://knowyourmeme.com...)As for your two other examples, I do not understand as I have not seen the Equestria Girls movie nor the fanmade episode (which I would consider non-canon and thus not relevant to the debate anyway.) Regardless, from what I believe your Equestria Girls example suggests, Pinkie Pie is able to again, interact with objects within her own universe. Regardless, the ability to break the 4th wall does not correlate with the ability to traverse all possible universes.Where is she?Let’s, for a moment, ignore the fact I’ve disproven both of my opponents arguments and humour him. If Pinkie Pie could choose to exist in this world, anyone familiar with the character would know that she would indeed choose to. I assert that if my opponents argument were correct, that Pinkie Pie WOULD exist in our world and that to inarguably prove his assertion he must show substantial evidence that this is the case.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CONCLUSIONWe have another round, so I will leave it at that. The long and short of it is that my opponents arguments are both extremely flawed. No credible science claims that infinite universes exist and he is grossly misrepresenting the many-world interpretation of quantum physics. Not only that, but he has not sufficiently shown that Pinkie Pie breaks the 4th wall, only that she is able to interact with her own universe on a level not dissimilar to many other cartoon characters.Over to you, Dumpy.