Revising Marvel's Abstracts (Part 1 of ???) (STAFF ONLY)

[Antvasima]

I am not arguing about this revision as a whole. I am just saying that we need some kind of safeguards to avoid the "everybody can fight everybody" narrative nature of Marvel Comics resulting in insane scaling chains. That is all, and it is a perfectly valid concern that I have the right to express without being instantly piled on.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

These drift-offs from the main discussion keep needlessly extending the thread, so, preferably, that stuff should be discussed after the revisions are done.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I just want others to keep this in mind and plan countermeasures, as it is important that we do not enter an insane chain-scaling hell because of this.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I'll keep that in mind, yeah.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. It is very appreciated.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Thank you. It is very appreciated.

By the way, in a bit I'll probably send a private message to you further outlining the plans I have for a potential division of Marvel's Cosmology. As I said, it's not as severe as what happened to DC, but it's something that I'd hope appeals both to you and to the proposals in this revision.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That seems good. Jim Starlin's extremely egocentric cosmology is obviously much smaller than the regular cosmology, and J.M. DeMatteis (who seems like an enormously nicer person than Starlin) also seems to have devised one that works differently, although for much more altruistic reasons (since he is trying to explain the teachings of Meher Baba to a wider audience).

 

[Lewis]

The topic must continue. I'd like to know the changes to this thread. whether it will pass or not. bump

 

[Antvasima]

It is very likely going to pass. I am mainly concerned about all of the insane chain-scaling of this verse, not the top cosmic entities, so I find the personal feats of characters more reliable.

 

[ByAsura]

Superflow

Ok, then, we'll discuss it later.

 

[LuciferX]

It isn't. Secret Wars II is still entirely canon. What was retconned was the Beyonder's stature in the cosmology and the context of his interactions with the Abstracts.

What about beyond realm? It was retconned as well. I'm aware that his position in cosmology was explained later but you can't deny the fact it can't explain the changes in beyond realm.

The Beyonder's infinite-dimensional statement also is never really directly corelated with the size of his universe in comparison to the Marvel Multiverse, so the latter being retconned doesn't mean that it also was. If it said something like "To have [insert finite number here] dimensions, as this multiverse does, instead of an infinite number? Such a thing was unknown to him", you'd have a point, but that's not how it goes.

Yes it does. Beyond realm is a pocket universe created by beyonders. and pocket universes are finite. How infinite dimensions can exist in a finite universe? Also this seems like cherrypicking that dimensional state wasn't retconned when there are sort of things were retconned already and can't be explained by Kubik and Kosmos conversation.

 

[ByAsura]

Firstly, The Beyonder becomes the substance and non-substance of the womb-space that he resides in. The actual dimensions of the womb-space without him are completely irrelevant to his own dimensionality because they're just nothing.

Secondly, pocket universes is very much a relative term, especially since the actual Beyond realm is dimensionally superior to the various iterations of the Cosmos.

Third, it's literally stated that The Beyonders that reside in these dimensions and the dimensions are infinite in scope, with The Beyonder remaking the 616 universe in The Beyond during Secret Wars III and Guardians of The Galaxy.

 

[LuciferX]

Secondly, pocket universes is very much a relative term, especially since the actual Beyond realm is dimensionally superior to the various iterations of the Cosmos.

Beyond and Beyonder's realm (universe) are different.

 

[ByAsura]

You're not getting the point.

The womb-space is a pocket dimension of something that completely transcends the multiverse, so that doesn't mean it's not infinite.

 

[Executor_N0]

Also, I'm sure that a lot of things are called Pocket Dimensions in the guidebooks, having that definition of being finite-sized, but but are still called infinite and transcendental in the books themselves.

If anything, I guess that the Marvel guidebooks kind of downplays the statements from the comics themselves, maybe still a leftover of when they basically tried to over explain everything with science and details not found in the comics. But nowadays, it's basically just ignoring the explanation in the comics to present a more "limited and compact" version for the guidebook.

 

[ByAsura]

After Asgard was called a pocket dimension that contains most of the 9 realms on a single, eponymous continent, I basically learned to never trust the handbooks again when it comes to Marvel's cosmology.

 

[LuciferX]

I'm saying in SW II, Beyonder is everything in his realm. bigger than multiverse and infinite dimensional. post retcon beyonder is also stated be a universe of his own, a pocket universe particularly. pocket universes are finite as per stated in guidebooks. Beyond realm is just a part of second cosmos. there is a correlation between his dimensionality and womb space.

 

[LuciferX]

Also, I'm sure that a lot of things are called Pocket Dimensions in the guidebooks, having that definition of being finite-sized, but but are still called infinite and transcendental in the books themselves.

If anything, I guess that the Marvel guidebooks kind of downplays the statements from the comics themselves, maybe still a leftover of when they basically tried to over explain everything with science and details not found in the comics. But nowadays, it's basically just ignoring the explanation in the comics to present a more "limited and compact" version for the guidebook.

Not counting hyperboles.

 

[ByAsura]

I'm saying in SW II, Beyonder is everything in his realm. bigger than multiverse and infinite dimensional. post retcon beyonder is also stated be a universe of his own, a pocket universe particularly. pocket universes are finite as per stated in guidebooks.

Cool, but again the actual comics say that both The Beyonder and the womb-space are infinite, so I really couldn't care less what the handbooks have to say.

They're just a fact file for readers that the authors of these stories don't take into account.

And, once again, it doesn't even have any bearing on The Beyonder himself because the womb-space isn't even an empty space without him. It basically doesn't even exist.

Beyond realm is just a part of second cosmos. there is a correlation between his dimensionality and womb space.

And then it became part of the outside.

You're talking about something heavily manipulated by beings that far surpass any multiversal Abstract, barring The Living Tribunal.

 

[LuciferX]

Cool, but again the actual comics say that both The Beyonder and the womb-space are infinite, so I really couldn't care less what the handbooks have to say.

I would say they are hyperboles cuz why not? Generally pocket universe mean to describe a finite universe. Ik, there are some counter arguements for it. Anyways, this is my arguement if we dismiss it.

Also this seems like cherrypicking that dimensional state wasn't retconned when there are sort of things were retconned already and can't be explained by Kubik and Kosmos conversation.

I bet beyonder calling him infinite is about power not size, and beyond being infinite or smth isn't related to womb space.

 

[ByAsura]

They're not hyperbole in the slightest. It's probably the only aspect of The Beyonder that hasn't changed, unlike abject buffoonery spouted by the Marvel Handbooks. Fact is, one statement from the handbooks is hardly even tertiary compared to the source material.

That's a different argument altogether, and I'm neutral on it.

 

[ByAsura]

I bet beyonder calling him infinite is about power not size, and beyond being infinite or smth isn't related to womb space.

Your suggestion about pocket dimensions literally poses the same problem.

Non-infinite for pocket dimensions also refers to size, and not dimensionality, in the handbooks.

That's what I'm arguing against.

 

[LuciferX]

Your suggestion about pocket dimensions literally poses the same problem.

Non-infinite for pocket dimensions also refers to size, and not dimensionality, in the handbooks.

That's what I'm arguing against.

Yep. but my arguement is how infinite dimensions could exist in a finite space? It doesn't make sense.

 

[ByAsura]

Yes, but my argument is that only the handbook is calling them finite in terms of spatial content (not even amount of spatial dimensions), and the handbook is stupid.

Repeating yourself doesn't change much.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Yes it does. Beyond realm is a pocket universe created by beyonders. and pocket universes are finite. How infinite dimensions can exist in a finite universe? Also this seems like cherrypicking that dimensional state wasn't retconned when there are sort of things were retconned already and can't be explained by Kubik and Kosmos conversation.

I bet beyonder calling him infinite is about power not size, and beyond being infinite or smth isn't related to womb space.

You are aware that the Cosmic Cubes and their energy are one and the same, yes? So the Beyonder's power being infinite means he himself is infinite as well, because he is that very power to begin with.

By extension, this means that the Beyond Realm is infinite, too, since it and the Beyonder are one and the same. This is also visually shown by the fact that, when his energy is gathered into a container, the whole thing literally vanishes.

 

[LuciferX]

Smh, stupid comics.

 

[LuciferX]

You are aware that the Cosmic Cubes and their energy are one and the same, yes? So the Beyonder's power being infinite means he himself is infinite as well, because he is that very power to begin with.

By extension, this means that the Beyond Realm is infinite, too, since it and the Beyonder are one and the same. This is also visually shown by the fact that, when his energy is gathered into a container, the whole thing literally vanishes.

Nani? Just because of possessing infinite power mean infinite in size? I never said the opppose though. power is not related to size. Even Big G has infinite power.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Nani? Just because of possessing infinite power mean infinite in size? I never said the opppose though. power is not related to size.

It means that if you, yourself, are that infinite amount of energy, instead of it just being something contained inside of you, yes.

 

[LuciferX]

It means that if you, yourself, are that energy, instead of it just being something contained inside of you, yes.

It could be, but it's not a concrete evidence though. Cosmic cubes don't have inifnite power to begin with. I mean it's even below the infinity gauntlet in power. It's all about hyperboles. Not to mention even Skyfathers stated to have infinite power, that's why I don't think it's a explicit evidence.

However, this is my main arguement:

Also this seems like cherrypicking that dimensional state wasn't retconned when there are sort of things were retconned already and can't be explained by Kubik and Kosmos conversation.

 

[ByAsura]

It's literally stated that there are degrees of infinite power specifically in reference to cosmic cubes due to a misunderstanding of set theory.

Being less infinite than the Infinity Gauntlet doesn't mean it's not infinite.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

It could be, but it's not a concrete evidence though. Cosmic cubes don't have inifnite power to begin with. I mean it's even below the infinity gauntlet in power. It's all about hyperboles.

I won't even dignify this with a proper answer.

As for this:

Also this seems like cherrypicking that dimensional state wasn't retconned when there are sort of things were retconned already and can't be explained by Kubik and Kosmos conversation.

It's not cherrypicking, it's just examining what exactly was explicitly, objectively retconned and what was left untackled by the retcon. Secret Wars II is still a canon story, even if the context behind some of its events changed, so arbitrarily considering the infinite-dimensional statement to have been retconned when it's not even directly tied to what was relevant for the retcon is a pretty flimsy notion. You may as well say any number of random characteristics of the Beyonder were retconned as well, by this point.

 

[LuciferX]

It's literally stated that there are degrees of infinite power specifically in reference to cosmic cubes due to a misunderstanding of set theory.

Being less infinite than the Infinity Gauntlet doesn't mean it's not infinite.

It basically proves my point, it means thier powers are transfinite which mean <absolute infinity.

 

[ByAsura]

It proves nothing because you're applying the real version of set theory to Marvel, not the dumb bullshit version that Quasar portrays.

By this logic, nobody can be more powerful than Eternity and Infinity, who are objectively called infinite and infinitely powerful (even in situations where transfinite is separated from infinity) thousands of times even on a universal scale, let alone multiversal Eternity and Infinity.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

It basically proves my point, it means thier powers are transfinite which mean <absolute infinity.

Transfinite doesn't mean "greater than finite but not infinite," it means "greater than any finite number," which in our terms means infinite. Absolute Infinity as a concept is well above the baseline notion of infinity.

 

[LuciferX]

It's not cheerypicking, it's just examining what exactly was explicitly, objectively retconned and what was left untackled by the retcon. Secret Wars II is still a canon story, even if the context behind some of its events changed, so arbitrarily considering the infinite-dimensional statement to have been retconned when it's not even directly tied to what was relevant for the retcon is a pretty flimsy notion.

What IF situation. I disagree because it's a unwarranted assumption, I lean towards the idea it was retconned as well, like Womb Space. Why not?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

What IF situation. I disagree because it's a unwarranted assumption, I lean towards the idea it was retconned as well, like Womb Space. Why not?

"Why not?" is, in fact, not a reason to consider it at all. At this point you're basically saying "Well that's just like, your opinion, man" without explaining what makes your own stance more logically sound than mine (And no, dismissing what I am saying as an "unwarranted assumption" without substantiating that claim doesn't count as an explanation)

 

[LuciferX]

"Why not?" is, in fact, not a reason to consider it at all. At this point you're basically saying "Well that's just like, your opinion, man" without explaining what makes your own stance more logically sound than mine (And no, dismissing what I am saying as an "unwarranted assumption" without substantiating that claim doesn't count as an explanation)

I already explained the reason.

You said Beyonder's dimensionality still applies to post retcon version due to context being explained in FF issue that he only met the reflections of abstracts.

It can only explain what happened between him and abstract beings.

Beyond realm was retconned to be a pocket universe and it can't be explained with the explaination given in FF issue.

So, Why do we assume his dimensionality is still the same when there are couple of things in Secret Wars 2 are invalid now?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

The whole "Beyond Realm is a pocket universe now" thing was already sufficiently addressed up there (Starting from my first response to you, in fact), so this summary really presents nothing new, and repeating myself is not what I'd like to do here. Do you have anything else to say?

 

[LuciferX]

So you're saying both are same?

 

[ByAsura]

Like I said, I'm neutral on keeping the infinite dimensional stuff, but 'it can't be explained with the explanation given in FF issue' and 'the handbook says it's a pocket universe' has frequently been explained by us.

It's not hard to argue against.