• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

How Did the Occoa Build the City in the Sky?

JuicieJ

SHOW ME YA MOVES!
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Location
On the midnight Spirit Train going anywhere
remeber they have powers of teleportation so they could have built it before hylians and teleported it to the sky or flew it up

But it's a floating city. Those propellers are keeping it in the air. If that's so, they wouldn't have needed to teleport it into the air. (And I doubt they could fly it into the sky. The Oocca can't exactly fly like normal birds. They can't take off into the air.)
 

Justeazy

Todo is the pfuf!
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Yeah, this wasn't in the game. I've actually never heard of it, either. Well, whoever said it is either trying to make stuff up to make himself look smart and/or confuse people, or just didn't know what he was talking about.
Or, you know, it could be a plausible theory.
Do you know what the word "plausible" means? That's exactly what I was saying.
Sounds like you're trying to make it sound like the opposite of plausible. (also, the next quote is also arguing the in-plausibility of this argument)
But the doors are still there. They still use them. If they can't build them, then they can't use them. That argument has a major flaw.
I've never built a door, but I have yet to find one I cannot use. No matter how hard I try, I doubt I'd be able to build a usable door. I didn't build my computer, my TV, my couch, my apartment, my car; practically everything I use, but that doesn't stop me from using any of it. Just because the Oocca didn't necessarilly build something doesn't mean they can't figure out how to use it.

I do not see how there is a flaw in the reasoning that they could have come after and used what they didn't build. It may not be a correct theory, but we do not know what the right answer is so until that time no plausible theory is incorrect, either.
 

JuicieJ

SHOW ME YA MOVES!
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Location
On the midnight Spirit Train going anywhere
Sounds like you're trying to make it sound like the opposite of plausible. (also, the next quote is also arguing the in-plausibility of this argument)

I've never built a door, but I have yet to find one I cannot use. No matter how hard I try, I doubt I'd be able to build a usable door. I didn't build my computer, my TV, my couch, my apartment, my car; practically everything I use, but that doesn't stop me from using any of it. Just because the Oocca didn't necessarilly build something doesn't mean they can't figure out how to use it.

I do not see how there is a flaw in the reasoning that they could have come after and used what they didn't build. It may not be a correct theory, but we do not know what the right answer is so until that time no plausible theory is incorrect, either.

Why are so many of my texts in bold? I only had a couple words...whatever.

Ok, how am I making something the opposite of plausible? I was talking about the goddesses having built it. How did I make that suggestion, whoever made it, not sound plausible?

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. There's a difference between not being able to build a door and being physically incapable of building a door. The Oocca are physically incapable of building a door due to their body structure.
 

Justeazy

Todo is the pfuf!
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
I'm not talking about the Goddesses theory. That's a completely separate thing. If you read what of yours I quoted you'd see what I was talking about. It's possible you misunderstood the topic when I said it could be a plausible theory, but it's still very rude to imply I don't know the meaning of "plausible". Not to mention if I replied to "that's plausible" (your post), with "or, that's plausible" (my post), it wouldn't have made any sense; so it's fairly simple to tell which part I was replying to (which was, of course, I was replying to your reply of my post, obviously).

Physically incapable of building a door and physically incapable of using a door are two different things.

I've seen a dog use a door. Here's a video for proof.[video=youtube;pexWDe-Xik8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pexWDe-Xik8[/video]
So (now correct me if I'm wrong), by that logic, that dog should be physically capable of building that kind of door?
 
Last edited:

Locke

Hegemon
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Location
Redmond, Washington
To clear up some confusion, this
Or, you know, it could be a plausible theory.
was in response to this
Yeah, this wasn't in the game. I've actually never heard of it, either. Well, whoever said it is either trying to make stuff up to make himself look smart and/or confuse people, or just didn't know what he was talking about.
which was a reply to this
I may be remembering something wrong, but I think there was some scrap of evidence somewhere that they moved in after the creator's had moved out/moved on/died. Though I can't find anything canon about it right now.
you weren't arguing about the goddesses' involvement.


---


Speaking under the guidance of Occam's razor, we have a race and a city. Therefore, it's best to assume that the race created the city. It is unnecessary to create another race to create the city. It has been shown through the Dominion Rod and references to other such tools that they have mastery over objects through magic. Since it is possible for them to create the city, the anti-razor you (JJ) are presenting is not valid. There are other anti-razors, however. These include the excessive scale of the whole structure except the shop, the existence of Skyloftians who may or may not be or be related to the Oocca, and the Dominion Rod being designed for a messenger, rather than for the Oocca themselves. Of course, all of these also have counter-arguments. For now, I'll take the stance I started this paragraph with, while also assuming the possibility of the race previously having a more humanoid form to account for some of the anti-razors.
 

JuicieJ

SHOW ME YA MOVES!
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Location
On the midnight Spirit Train going anywhere
I'm not talking about the Goddesses theory. That's a completely separate thing. If you read what of yours I quoted you'd see what I was talking about. It's possible you misunderstood the topic when I said it could be a plausible theory, but it's still very rude to imply I don't know the meaning of "plausible". Not to mention if I replied to "that's plausible" (your post), with "or, that's plausible" (my post), it wouldn't have made any sense; so it's fairly simple to tell which part I was replying to (which was, of course, I was replying to your reply of my post, obviously).

Physically incapable of building a door and physically incapable of using a door are two different things.

I've seen a dog use a door. Here's a video for proof.[video=youtube;pexWDe-Xik8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pexWDe-Xik8[/video]
So (now correct me if I'm wrong), by that logic, that dog should be physically capable of building that kind of door?

Oh, come on. That dog was trained to do that. That's totally not the same thing, and you know it. (And, no, I never said that if you can use a door, you can build it. I don't know where you got that from. That's totally misunderstanding me.)

To clear up some confusion, thiswas in response to thiswhich was a reply to thisyou weren't arguing about the goddesses' involvement.


---


Speaking under the guidance of Occam's razor, we have a race and a city. Therefore, it's best to assume that the race created the city. It is unnecessary to create another race to create the city. It has been shown through the Dominion Rod and references to other such tools that they have mastery over objects through magic. Since it is possible for them to create the city, the anti-razor you (JJ) are presenting is not valid. There are other anti-razors, however. These include the excessive scale of the whole structure except the shop, the existence of Skyloftians who may or may not be or be related to the Oocca, and the Dominion Rod being designed for a messenger, rather than for the Oocca themselves. Of course, all of these also have counter-arguments. For now, I'll take the stance I started this paragraph with, while also assuming the possibility of the race previously having a more humanoid form to account for some of the anti-razors.

Actually, the "plausible" thing was me in response to someone saying that the goddesses made the city.

Hey, I'm not saying I know everything and that I'm right, I'm just saying that creatures with wings (no opposable appendages) probably can't build a city. Even using the Dominion Rod, -- which is one of those things that makes sense in the game, but not real life, like Tatl not being able to open that door in Majora's Mask. (That being the owl-faced statues scattered about Hyrule and the canon and all that. I doubt that's how it'd be in a real story.) -- the Oocca have pathetic-looking little wings that wouldn't be able to hold it properly. So, really, the Dominion Rod (despite what I said) isn't really a possiblilty in the city being built. Just using a bit of logic, there. Again, not saying I'm right (as there really is no right answer that we know of), but it seems highly unlikely for the Oocca to have been able to build a giant city. (I'm also not saying how the city was made. I'm not gonna say anything on that.)
 

Justeazy

Todo is the pfuf!
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
If they can't build them, then they can't use them.
That statement is a contrapositive. Meaning it's the same thing as "If they can use them, they can build them."
(Yes, contrapositives apply to physics, meaning both using and building a door.)
Step 1: Take the original statement: Can't build doors: can't use doors
if this is true,
Step 2: Change positives to negatives, and vice versa: Can build doors: can use doors
and
Step 3: Switch the first and second statements: Can use doors: Can build doors
Therefore, in order for your original sentence to be true, then the dog who can open the door must be able to build a door. So if that dog is incapable of building a door, either it must not be capable of using one, or, since the video proves that false, then your original statement must be flawed.
Source: http://theory-of-evolution.net/contrapositive-logic-5.html (If you don't trust my source, feel free to google "Laws of Contrapositives" and find hundreds of others who support this.)
The general form of contrapositive statements is ‘if P implies Q is true, then the statement not Q implies not P is also true." Consider another example: Let P = today is Friday and Q = today is a weekday. P implies Q because "today is Friday implies that today is a weekday." Step 1 apply the not operator: "today is not Friday implies that today is not a weekday." Notice that this is not true. Step 2) reverse the sentence: "today is not a weekday implies that today is not Friday. This statement is always true.
Oh, come on. That dog was trained to do that. That's totally not the same thing, and you know it. (And, no, I never said that if you can use a door, you can build it. I don't know where you got that from. That's totally misunderstanding me.)
It IS the same thing. Until you can provide counter evidence my evidence stands. You show me an immigrant from a third world country who has never seen a door before who knows how to use it just because he also possesses the physical capability to build it, if he knew how.
Of course the dog was trained. The difference is, you cannot train a dog to BUILD a door, which is the important part of your statement. (After all, without the second half, the first half has nothing to be compared to.)

I'm not misunderstanding you. As I've just proved, you've either misunderstood yourself or said something incorrectly. Not that you're wrong, but rather that you may have typed something wrong.



Anyway, I guess the point of all my rambling is that BOTH the possibility that they built it in some way, shape, or form or that someone else built it and they moved in are BOTH plausible.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 23, 2011
Whoever the builders are/were built the City in the Sky probably used some kind of sophisticated technology similar to the "Dominion Rod controlled statues". That is to say they got the technology (statues?) to do it for them...kinda (using the Dominion Rod to do so would still technically mean they themselves built it).

At any rate, if the previous inhabitants of the City in the Sky were/are the Oocca, or whomever else they may be or have been, they didn't just float in the sky and build the thing in mid-air (unless they were some flying/levitating kind of beings...at some point. I don't recall the Oocca being adept flyers in TP). I surmise they built it as a kind of vessel or giant ship; perhaps on which they could find land beyond Skyloft. This is just one of a thousand possibilities (based on other popular theories), as to why they'd build such a thing. Skyloft may have been where it (The City in the Sky) was built. They may have set sail or something from Skyloft. I HIGHLY doubt Skyloft is floating on propellers like The City in the Sky. It appears that it floats by some kind of magic (hmm, maybe the same magic these floating beings used to build the City in the Sky in mid-air?).

If it was built in mid-air, that could imply heavenly intervention, or maybe telekinesis. Another point: if there was no other place (floating land) in the sky from which the City in the Sky could be built, then that could also imply that the builders were from Hyrule. This finding would have the potential to crush the proponents of the Skyloft theories, as many of them adhere to the Word of God's interviews in which it was stated that no one on Skyloft knows of the world below. There's more stuff to this, but I'd have to start a new thread to elaborate.
 

Smitie

The Dutch Kusagari
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Location
The Netherlands
I don't think the oocca built the city in the sky, but they moved in after the original creators left. The city is way too large for the oocca and it hasn't been cared for for ages (it looks more like a ruin of a city). If they are such good builders and have access to advanced technology (dominion rod) then why don't they fix their city? Maybe the 'pre-oocca' gave the city and the technology to the oocca when they died out, but this is entirely based on speculation. I hope skyward sword can give some answers.
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2011
Location
Norway
I think it's very possible for the Oocca to have made the City in the Skies, from what I remember they were able to create hylians so why not? also The reason the city is so ruined could be explained by lazyness, as long as it flies, why fix it? the dragon ould also be the reasons for the destruction, and he Oocca may not have gotten around to fix it yet. also, Shad says that at the same time that they created the Hylians, they also created The City in the Sky, so I guess it's not even worth discussing If they did it, the question is HOW

Shad said:
When they created the people of Hylia, they simultaneously created a new capital, a city that floated in the heavens.
 

JuicieJ

SHOW ME YA MOVES!
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Location
On the midnight Spirit Train going anywhere
It IS the same thing. Until you can provide counter evidence my evidence stands. You show me an immigrant from a third world country who has never seen a door before who knows how to use it just because he also possesses the physical capability to build it, if he knew how.
Of course the dog was trained. The difference is, you cannot train a dog to BUILD a door, which is the important part of your statement. (After all, without the second half, the first half has nothing to be compared to.)

Ok, here we go. Explain to me how a little chicken can jump up and open a door with its pathetic little wings. ....................It can't. That's what I've been meaning this whole time. No wonder you've been missing my point, you didn't think about that part. Well, maybe I should have explained that part of my reasoning. This also goes into what I said about if they can't build it, they can't use it. That I definitely should have been more specific on.

I'm not misunderstanding you. As I've just proved, you've either misunderstood yourself or said something incorrectly. Not that you're wrong, but rather that you may have typed something wrong.

Again, I should have just been more specific. Hope I made myself clear.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom