- 7,256
- 13,178
If you direct me to an instance of an added key that is comparable to what we are doing here, I can try and mirror the formatting and make the changes.
-
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.
DC Comics - Animal Man Cosmology Determination
- Thread starter Xearsay
- Start date
- Status
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 8,910
- 5,812
I have done the editing, but is it not better for him to get a key when using the M-field?
- 165,207
- 72,190
Thank you for helping out.
That seems to make sense to me at least. What do the rest of you think?
- 32,327
- 20,215
I think the cosmology division proposed by the ADC is really dumb and unfair. I disagree with the Low 1-C limitation.
Scottycj256
He/Him- 1,765
- 907
I disagree with Ant FRA
- 1,275
- 1,022
- Thread starter
- #408
How often these phrases are said isn’t relevant to my point. As I wasn’t arguing about how common the phrases are said, I was simply listing what the phrase “the shamanic universe” would be comparable to. I digress, the point is that it’s clearly referring to the universe of a religion(Shamanism) and not talking about the irl universe like Pain was arguing.
First of all, I already went back on my claim about the word “world” being consistently used to refer to separate planes of existence.
Second, you clearly do not understand what I was arguing. I was arguing that a structure being called “the physical universe” was not inherent proof of it it’s size being 3-A or low 2-C. So, to try and prove the physical universe was a 3-A or low 2-C structure Pain posted a scan talking about how our world was 3-D. Meaning Pain was connecting what’s said in the 3-D world scan to the physical universe scan. However, the problem I had with this is that there is no evidence of the 3-D world in the context of that scan being in reference to the structure called the “physical universe.”
The scan saying our individual minds and our world is like a cell in the system of wholes still doesn’t prove that humans are the wholes like what Pain had said.
- 7,256
- 13,178
The objection was not that these phrases aren't used "often." It is that they don't exist.
Without very solid evidence suggesting otherwise, there is no reason to interpret a "physical universe" as something other than a 3-A to low 2-C structure. Further, referencing the "3-D world of man's existence" very clearly and obviously means the universe, and calls it 3-D.
I never said it did. I objected to your very poor reasoning for why it was "absurd" by referencing that the same level of absurdity exists anyways.
Besides, none of this is really relevant. Your main claims have been debunked and far more accurate revisions are being implemented in their stead. I don't see a reason to persist in the minutia of these topics given that you already dodged my full debunk.
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 8,910
- 5,812
Even without the cosmology division, the entire structure won’t get past low 1-C.
And it’s not limitation, if it’s accurate
- 1,275
- 1,022
- Thread starter
- #411
My point isn’t dependent on whether these phrases exist or not, my point is built on the term “shamanic universe” referring to the universe and cosmology presented in shamanism and not the irl universe.
It’s never called “a” physical universe. It’s called “the physical universe.” And saying it’s obvious is not an argument. This “3-D world of mans existence” and “the physical universe” could very well be completely different things.
If you’re not defending Pains point about humans being the wholes in the system, then what’s the point in this aspect of our discussion? As that’s literally what I’m disagreeing with.
Last edited:
- 487
- 476
For what reasons do you disagree?
- 7,256
- 13,178
The difference is immaterial. The meaning is the same.
Could be, but unless they are shown to be, the default assumption would be that they are the same. When you hear hooves, you think horses, not zebras. Likewise, I find it ironic that you are demanding a standard of explicit literal evidence when none of your assertions meet that standard.
I am defending it, but the human minds/worlds scan was not the evidence. You said that it couldn't be humans because "that would mean humans make up larger humans which make up even larger humans" which is absurd. I am pointing out that if your interpretation is correct, it's absurd anyways, because the same concept would apply to the human minds explicitly mentioned in the scan.
- 1,275
- 1,022
- Thread starter
- #414
The meaning of “the physical universe” has never been associated with a standard 3-A or low 2-C structure in the story.
Two structures never being explicitly stated to be different doesn’t support them being the same. As I said before something being called “the physical universe” does not confine it to a being 3-D structure like you and Pain have been arguing.
First of all, I said the wholes aren’t humans because there’s literally nothing saying the wholes are humans. The only evidence Pain used to support this was a scan that talked about humans and the divine being made up of the same substance, which doesn’t mention anything about humans being the wholes that constitute the physical universe. Also what you said about smaller human minds making up larger human minds was never said in the scan talking about the physical universe. So I don’t even know where you’re getting that from.
- 7,256
- 13,178
That's the meaning of the phrase "physical universe."
Right. What makes them the same is the inherent meaning of each description.
Jesus christ. You said that the wholes can't be humans because that would mean "humans make up larger humans etc" which was absurd. But we know that human minds are part of this system of wholes, which means if your interpretation is accurate, human minds make up larger human minds. Therefore, your objection isn't valid because the alleged absurdity already exists.
It wasn't said in the scan. You said it, in reference to what you saw as the logical outcome of humans being part of this system. I simply applied to to the known aspects of the system, to demonstrate that this alleged absurdity is unavoidable.
- 1,275
- 1,022
- Thread starter
- #416
Oh really. Then where in the context of the story is the “the physical universe” characterized as a 3-A or low 2-C structure?
You just ignored part of my comment. My first reason for the wholes not being humans was because there was literally no evidence of it. As I’ll quote my own reply to Pain.
“Where does it say humans are the smaller wholes in the physical universe????? Can you at least post the scan?”
Also the absurdity doesn’t already exist. Human minds and our world being like a cell in the system of wholes is not the same as saying “human minds make up larger human minds.”
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 8,910
- 5,812
I feel like you keep getting this the wrong way, fractals don’t mean there are larger humans, it’s simply the theory of Self-Similarity
It means that “If parts of a figure are small replicas of the whole, then the figure is called self-similar....A figure is strictly self-similar if the figure can be decomposed into parts which are exact replicas of the whole.”
So the wholes does not mean larger humans as that is literally absurd, it just means fractals. In the theory of fractals, the stars and the human cells are made up of the same similarities (shapes and composition) does that mean each stars are just cells that have been magnified??
It just feels like you are arguing for argument sake the moment you mentioned “bigger humans”
so you should read this
Fractal - Wikipedia
- 7,256
- 13,178
With the phrase "physical universe."
It's no concern of mine that you do not accept this.
Good grief. You are the one that came to that conclusion. This was literally your own argument against the humans being cells. You are arguing against yourself.
- 1,275
- 1,022
- Thread starter
- #419
Ok well this is different from what you said before on the 4th page. However I already know the system of wholes that constitute the physical universe are recursive so I don’t really need this information.I feel like you keep getting this the wrong way, fractals don’t mean there are larger humans, it’s simply the theory of Self-Similarity
It means that “If parts of a figure are small replicas of the whole, then the figure is called self-similar....A figure is strictly self-similar if the figure can be decomposed into parts which are exact replicas of the whole.”
So the wholes does not mean larger humans as that is literally absurd, it just means fractals. In the theory of fractals, the stars and the human cells are made up of the same similarities (shapes and composition) does that mean each stars are just cells that have been magnified??
It just feels like you are arguing for argument sake the moment you mentioned “bigger humans”
so you should read this
Fractal - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
- 1,275
- 1,022
- Thread starter
- #420
How does the “physical universe” being called the “physical universe” prove it is being defined as a 3-A or low 2-C structure in context of the story? That’s like if someone asked me for evidence that a “building” was being defined as 12 stories tall and I told them that it’s 12 stories tall because it’s a called a building.
This is a blatant lie. I wasn’t arguing against humans being like a cell in the system of wholes, I was arguing against humans being the wholes themselves which is what Pain and you are arguing.
- 7,256
- 13,178
No, it'd be like if someone asked what the evidence was that a "building" is just a building rather than multiple buildings.
Whether you accept it or not, the reality is that the phrase "physical universe" implies 3-A to Low 2-C.
Okay, sure. I don't really care to convince you that you said that, anyone can read it if they want.
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 8,910
- 5,812
No it’s not, it’s the same thing. This is just mean elaborating where it came from
Good then we can move on
- 165,207
- 72,190
So what should we currently do here, Pain_to12 and Deagonx? Are there any edits that you still need to make to our Animal Man profile page? Adding better clarifications and references for example, preferably via footnotes or an explanation section, so we avoid future misunderstandings and repeated discussions about this.
- 1,275
- 1,022
- Thread starter
- #424
That’s a bad analogy as what you said isn’t even the same as what I’m asking. You also ignored my question.
How does the physical universe being called “the physical universe” prove it is being characterized as a 3-A or low 2-C structure in context of the story?
Yes. Anyone can read you blatantly misrepresenting my argument.
- 1,275
- 1,022
- Thread starter
- #425
I mean we can move on but I don’t know what to, as this was never actually a point of contention. I was agreeing with the wholes being recursive in nature since the first page. The point we disagree on is whether the physical universe was a hierarchy. And your argument for why it wasn’t a hierarchy was essentially because that you think there’s more evidence for it being a 3-A or low 2-C structure. Which as far as I’m aware is unsupported.
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 8,910
- 5,812
Don’t know what you think
But I don’t need to proof or support anything to you
You are the one making a claim.
When there is a mention of a universe it is default 3-A to low 2-C.
It’s up to you to proof there is a hierarchy which you have failed horribly to do and rather I even provided evidence that says otherwise.
Anyway if you are moving on, address my post above addressing point 4
- 181
- 278
I have to agree with Xearsay
- 1,275
- 1,022
- Thread starter
- #428
I didn’t fail to support my point. The world Soul which exists on a higher ontological scale also exist as a whole amongst wholes in the Physical Universe proves the interconnection of wholes are higher ontological levels. Coupled with the reality to fiction difference scans I’ve already posted this directly proves there is a hierarchy. Your only evidence against this was the 3-D world scan, which neither you nor Deagonx could prove supports your point.
Sure.
1. The scan being a “goodbye post” means nothing. The point is that it states when Buddy died and came back to life, “he came back by crawling his way to the top of the Lifeweb.” Which is a reference to when Buddy died and was swept away into the imaginal worlds. Meaning the imaginal worlds must be at the top of the Lifeweb.
2. You’re right that the word “higher” is never mentioned in the scan talking about the imaginal worlds being a realm of archetypes. However the reason I said the imaginal realms were “higher” was because I was combining information we know from other scans.
3. Nowhere in those scans does it equate space and time with something 3-D.
4. You say there is no structure stretching to infinity despite the scan directly stating the Lifeweb(a structure) stretches to infinity.
- 7,256
- 13,178
You have not supported this with evidence.
No it doesn't. The World Soul is not a level itself, you are just claiming it's from a higher level. How would the World Soul being a whole among wholes support the idea that the wholes are levels, if the World Soul isn't a level?
You have not proven any R>F differences in this thread at all.
Except we did. You just refused to acknowledge it unless it met your arbitrary criteria that you don't even apply to your own evidence.
That's not what it would mean at all. If he was swept away into the imaginal worlds and then had to "crawl his way to the top of the Lifeweb" to get back, that would indicate that the Imaginal Worlds are at the bottom. If he was already at the top (the Imaginal Worlds) then why would he have to crawl to it? Nonsense.
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 8,910
- 5,812
This is just funny at this point, but sure whatever you think works for you.
I have a simple question before I even start pointing out the things here
Where was lifeweb states to be a structure or hierarchy?
- 1,275
- 1,022
- Thread starter
- #431
Yes I did.
You’re arguing semantics. The main point is that the World Soul has a higher ontological scale. Which is fine as you can have a hierarchy of literal consciousnesses. Just look at the Leviathans Catacean hierarchy for example.
Yes I did. The Writer directly referenced beings dreaming each other within the interconnection.
The last time I asked you to prove how the physical universe being called “the physical universe” meant that it was being defined as a 3-A or low 2-C structure in context of the story, you never responded.
You have to read the full text. Buddy would die and then claw his way to the top of the lifeweb before scampering down the other side, in order to come back to life. Meaning he died and then traveled to the top where we would find him in the imaginal worlds before he would go back down to come back to life.
Which makes sense as even the Spider Queen had to spin the lifeweb(an upward structure) across all the imaginal worlds so she could trap them.
Last edited:
- 1,275
- 1,022
- Thread starter
- #432
Well for one it’s the same as the Red, which is essentially the field of all life.
It’s also implied to be some type of structure as it encompasses both higher dimensions, space and time, and the imaginal worlds as I pointed out in the main post.
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 8,910
- 5,812
I don’t need care about implied or what you think.
Do you have any stated proof or showings?
- 7,256
- 13,178
Higher plane =/= Higher ontological level
You have not proven that the system of "whole of wholes" is levels of reality, which was your initial assertion. Your basis for it was illogical, and you have not proven that the world soul's "higher plane" is ontological.
No, he asked "who was dreaming who." He never said beings dreamed each other.
I responded multiple times. The phrase "the physical universe" itself implies 3-A to Low 2-C by it's very definition, combined with the fact that man's plane of existence was regarded as 3-D. You chose not to accept this, but that doesn't matter.
In what way does that imply the Imaginal Worlds are at the top?
- 165,207
- 72,190
Pain_to12 and Deagonx:
So does the Animal Man page need tk be further modified according to your conclusions here, or is it fine as it is already?
vsbattles.fandom.com
So does the Animal Man page need tk be further modified according to your conclusions here, or is it fine as it is already?
Animal Man (Post-Crisis)
Buddy Baker is the Animal Man, the chosen protector of The Red, the force which connects all animal life. He is both a family man and a super-hero, often struggling to keep balance between the two. Tier: At least 9-B, possibly Low 2-C Name: Bernhard "Buddy" Baker, Animal Man Origin: DC Comics...
vsbattles.fandom.com
- Status
