- 1,205
- 364
- Thread starter
- #81
One question why can't we use composite cosmology.
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
A very small animal man crt.
- Thread starter Westcoast5005
- Start date
-
- Tags
- animal man
- Status
- 3,062
- 2,660
Because of the contradictions between the authors. Also, dividing the cosmologies would be much simpler to tier DC characters more accurately, though this may be debatable.
- 1,205
- 364
- Thread starter
- #83
Am pretty sure the multiverse map solved most of the contradiction but this is a topic for another Day
- 3,759
- 1,622
Just incase this is accepted wouldn't it make GM multiverse high 1B?
- 3,062
- 2,660
Maybe.
- 3,062
- 2,660
- 165,392
- 72,718
@Zensum @C2_of_Omegon @Eficiente @Qawsedf234 @SuperAPM @Firestorm808 @EmperorRorepme @LuciferDC099 @Newendigo @Ehnkr2beboh @Deagonx @LordTracer @The_Impress @Planck69 @Confluctor @MarvelFanatic119
We still need more input here.
We still need more input here.
- 12,662
- 9,599
I will read through Sandman's debunk when I get time. Tho I did say earlier that I agree with it. Seems kinda straight forward to me tbh
- 1,205
- 364
- Thread starter
- #93
Are there anymore counters
- 1,205
- 364
- Thread starter
- #95
Ok the can you tag them again?
- 165,392
- 72,718
@Zensum @C2_of_Omegon @Eficiente @Qawsedf234 @SuperAPM @Firestorm808 @EmperorRorepme @LuciferDC099 @Newendigo @Ehnkr2beboh @Deagonx @LordTracer @The_Impress @Planck69 @MarvelFanatic119
Would you be willing to help out here please?
Would you be willing to help out here please?
- 1,711
- 853
Neutral for now, but leaning towards agreeing if the scans are anything to go by. I'll look through the debunk later.
- 7,388
- 13,522
I'm not seeing the word "void" anywhere in those scans nor an indication of transcending something.
This is heavily editorialized. The first scan calls him the "Ineffable Antithesis" but never calls him the 'antithesis to creation.' The second scan calls him "a shadow formed by existence itself" not "the shadow of creation" which implies a less grandiose relationship. Though even if the scans had said what you claim I'm not sure why it's being included as it's too vague to interpret as a power level.
For the third scan, it does say that all of creation will be sucked into the void if Antagon wins, but it's not clear if Antagon himself is doing it or how he's accomplishing it, so I think scaling from it would require more specific evidence.
At the expense of sounding harsh, literally none of this could be considered a reasonable or grounded interpretation of the scans. There is never said to be an 'infinite amount of higher dimensions'' There is a scan that mentions an "infinite web of life" and about the character seeing himself in "mirrors that reflect higher dimensions." These two statements aren't even on the same page and aren't connected in any way. I see no reference to space and time at all, let alone something saying it transcends it.
The scan says:
"release yourselves into the space beyond all knowing..."
and in a separate text box "join us in the place that is not of time and space"
The phrase "knowing" is not connected to "time and space" in the manner you suggest. This location is not of time and space, that much is clear, but I'm not sure why you feel that's relevant.
These two statements in separate pages cannot be connected in the manner you are suggesting without actual evidence connecting the two.
In conclusion, this entire CRT seems to be based on heavily editorialized evidence, and provided no explanation for how the evidence justifies 1-A even if it was in-fact portrayed how he claimed. Maybe there's something to these scans that justifies a revision of some kind, but OP has not done an adequate job of explaining why that's the case.
- 1,205
- 364
- Thread starter
- #101
Am gonna answer this later.
- 7,388
- 13,522
Well, the first problem is that the evidence isn't fairly represented. There's several instances in which he simply quotes the scans incorrectly, or draws conclusions that aren't supported by the statements themselves. It's always a red flag when someone is editorializing the scans. In a best case scenario, the scan should be quoted almost verbatim, and if you want to explain what you think it means then you add that, with your reasoning/rationale included.
A lot of people quote what they think should be concluded from the scan, and then link the scan, which can leave someone thinking that the scan actually says that when it doesn't. For example, he could say that Antagon being the "Ineffable Antithesis" can be reasonably interpreted to be in connection to creation, but he shouldn't pseudo-quote the scan without notating that this is just his interpretation, not something the comic says.
The other problem, and this is a big one that a lot of people have particularly with Tier 1 threads, is that he didn't connect the evidence to the 1-A criteria. Hypothetically, even if the scans said what he says they did, we're still left to fill in the blanks of why it makes the character 1-A, when it's his responsibility to explain that as the author of the CRT.
Last edited:
- 3,759
- 1,622
Okay, I understand so it's basically good when making CRTs to word what are shown or stated in the scan without bringing our own interpretation of it as not to cause any contradictions.
True but infinite dimensions is just 1-B and transcending such should be low 1A. But I get everything so now he has to explain what or clarify to us what makes Animal man such teir.
No problem
.
- 7,388
- 13,522
Almost, but not quite. You can bring your own interpretation, but you should explain that interpretation from a verbatim quote of the scan rather than simply stating your interpretation and linking the scan. If you provide your reasoning there's nothing wrong with interpreting something a certain way, as long as you're prepared to defend that interpretation with objective evidence.
Yeah that's kind of the idea. We can infer what his reasoning is, but it's best if he provides it directly so that it can be responded to. Otherwise you'll have people debunking an implication only for the OP to say "that's not what my point was" or something similar.
I'd be willing to add a footnote. Having read the Animal Man page I'm not sure what we'd say in it from this CRT though. Maybe something about existing in an incorporeal space? But also there's very very little context for the scans and I am not sure who is saying what and about whom.
- 165,392
- 72,718
Well, just debunks of claims that Animal Man is High 1-B to 1-A, basically.
- 7,388
- 13,522
I'm iffy on whether it's necessary. I'd advocate for including it if there was evidence that could be easily misinterpreted as 1-A, but I don't see any evidence like that here. If it comes up again and someone has the same interpretation, then I think it would worth revisiting. That's just my opinion, though.
- 7,388
- 13,522
Truth be told I wouldn't even say I am knowledgeable enough. I'm only working with the scans provided. For the most part if I participate in a CRT about a character I'm not personally familiar with, it's primarily a matter of assessing how the scans are represented vs what they say, and calling out inconsistencies or pointing out that a scan doesn't properly contextualize a statement or feat if you have no other background knowledge.
Ideally, both the feat and the context are provided, the scans are quoted verbatim and then reasoning is provided for why it supports a certain level of power. When done right, even someone who has never heard of a character should be able to understand how and why that character should be rated there. Of course, a lot of CRTs don't do this.
Ideally, both the feat and the context are provided, the scans are quoted verbatim and then reasoning is provided for why it supports a certain level of power. When done right, even someone who has never heard of a character should be able to understand how and why that character should be rated there. Of course, a lot of CRTs don't do this.
- 165,392
- 72,718
Yes, and most of our staff and experienced members do not know enough context about Marvel or DC Comics to properly evaluate them. A footnote based on your and Sandman31's arguments would likely be very helpful.
- 1,205
- 364
- Thread starter
- #112
If you read the scan you would see where it States a place that is not of time or space a place that existed before creation and pretty sure it was void that existed before creation.
You also ignored the scans of him creating creation and fixing the source and the m mfield.
Also about this statement of atangon being the antithesis of existence not creation. You seem to forget when DC is talking about creation the use words like multiverse universe and existence so him saying existence doesn't make him less.
It literally says all creation would be sucked in void if Atagon wins. They don't need to explain how he will do that it's clear as day. The obvious answer would be he would suck creation into the void no matter how you try to play it that's what it's implying. The way Atagon is writing it's implying that.
About the red it seems you missed the point. The red stretches to infinity and says the red encompasses higher dimensions that's what the scan his meant for.
I would comment more later as I don't have the time now.
- 7,388
- 13,522
Right, so this is the reasoning you've provided:
A place that is not of time or space, which existed before creation = void before creation.
Well, that could be true, but it could be something else as well. However, let's say it is the void before creation. Where are you getting the impression that they transcended it?
I saw the scans, but I didn't see the first line of your post as I was distracted by the embedded image. I'll address it now.
The scans simply say create a universe which is nowhere near 1-A.
You are the one that said antithesis to creation:
Either way, the scan doesn't tell us what he is the antithesis of.
Referring to your conclusion as obvious isn't an appropriate way to conduct a debate. They never explain how that's going to happen. You are assuming that Antagon himself will do so, and that's fine for you to assume that, but it isn't a basis for a CRT, at least not in my opinion. Not without evidence that indicates that he's the one doing it.
Okay, but you said that it was infinite higher dimensions, which is not supported by the scans.
- 1,276
- 1,022
Didn’t Morrison base The Red off of David Bohm’s theory of the implicate order?
“Bohm believes that this "hiddeness" may be reflective of a deeper dimension of reality. He maintains that space and time might actually be derived from an even deeper level of objective reality. This reality he calls the Implicate Order.
Bohm believes that the Implicate Order has to be extended into a multidimensional reality; in other words, the holomovement endlessly enfolds and unfolds into infinite dimensionality.”
Knowing that Morrison used Bohms theory when designing The Red, the idea that the life web stretches to infinity while also reflecting higher dimensions can be inferred as the Red enfold and unfolding into infinite dimensionionality.
- 165,392
- 72,718
Our standard is that we can only base cosmology statistics based on what has been explicitly stated within the stories themselves, especially as Morrison has afterwards seemed to strictly limit the cosmology to the 11 dimensions of some branches of string theory.
- 7,388
- 13,522
It doesn't really matter what he based it off of if he did not put those aspects of the theory in a DC comic book.
It could be, but there isn't actual on-panel evidence for that.
- 1,276
- 1,022
Except he did. So we can indeed conclude infinite higher dimensions based off the evidence.
- 1,205
- 364
- Thread starter
- #118
Weather you agree it's the void or not it's still transcends creation. Also when did I say it transcends the void?
I said it transcends creation.
this is proving when it States join use in place that's not of time and space a place.
Read it well and the multiple pages it says with out them the work creation will fail the source the m field
Then they use imagination to recreate the universe which means creation in this case. Like I said before you seem to forget that creation can be called with multiple names like universe multiverse and existence.
The scan states he is an antithesis for existence if add the other scans and the nature of his being the most logical answer would be he is the antitesis of creation.
If atangon isn't the one doing it why did they say if he wins creation would be sucked into a void it's common sense and the most logical outcome. Also the nature of his being as the shadow of creation and antithesis implies he is the one who would destroy creation.
- 7,388
- 13,522
In your scan, he gives various interpretations of the same concept, one of which is Bohm's theory. This does not necessarily mean that Bohm's theory is canon to DC (nor necessarily David Peat's interpretation of Bohm, which is what you quoted), it only tells us that the character is aware of the theory, as well as many others (such as Dreamtime from the Aboriginals, Nagual from the Yaqui Indians, and he was about to expand on another similar concept from the Hopi).
Likewise, that being the case still would not provide a means to connect the two statements about the Lifeweb in the manner you are suggesting.
How so?
Do you have evidence that universe means all of creation here?
The scan does not state this, unless there is a second scan that says "antithesis" which I overlooked.
You can do something to facilitate an event without actually being capable of performing the event yourself.
- 3,759
- 1,622
I disagree with this based the creation of the MOTM and it's M-theory in one book.
- Status
Similar threads
