I trust that Ultima can satisfactorily address DT and Agnaa in time.shouldn't ultimas thread be accepted by now
he has enough staff approval
him and dt are just going to keep debating endlessly
no one is going summarize 500000+ words
I trust DT will eventually bring up an argument not already addressed in the OP.
He already has.
Perhaps you’re right. As it stands right now, I’m not convinced by DTs arguments at all.
Thing is, since those who see the lower realms as fiction are still part of the cosmology, it will automatically propel the cosmology as well.
Does anyone know why immutability matters? It's completely contradictory.
I'mma try it.
Omnipresent characters don't necessarily have to change. That'd only be the case if they were omnipresent by virtue of the universe (Or more generally, the "changeable" part of the cosmology) being their body, or somesuch, which can't be the case for a Tier 0 under the proposed system.
The idea that concepts emerged after a character's existence challenges the relevance of immutability itself. If these characters exist outside concepts, time and existence, defining them by traits that don't matter to them becomes problematic.
It's not particularly problematic, no, because there is something preventing the existence of a similarity between those traits as seen in a Tier 0 (In an absolute fashion) and those traits as manifested in things lesser than a Tier 0. To the extent you can say the latter are lesser expressions of the former. Generally speaking, I do agree that there has to be at least some relation between a Tier 0 and things beneath it, for it to be quantifiable at all.
in conclusion, neco-arc is tier 0, yes?
So how is immutability a rule? There simply no reason to be a requirement, what you yourself proposed already rules out the need for immutability in the character's self-sufficiency.
Not sure I understand your point here. If what you want to say is "Immutability shouldn't be a requirement because the character should transcend all concepts, including the concept of Immutability," then I already addressed that in the fourth paragraph here.
"The justification for immutability being a rule is non-existent and any concept is in the same position as immutability and therefore should also be a rule"
Yeah, that sounds like the exact thing I already addressed (In the linked post). Not too sure of what else you want me to say, here.
You didn't give a justification for immutability being a rule, you said that your system needs it but you didn't say why the system needs it.
Yeah, I see some error in Ultima but the idea remains very concrete. While I don't get much of DT’s point nor do they properly address the more pressing issue. He has to look at it from Ultima’'s perspective while it seems his heavily focused on what R>F means within the context of dimensional jump which is already addressed properly by Ultimta.
A lot of people have mentioned things like the apophatic theory and the Omnipotence quagmire as a sort of resolute to the idea of God’s immutability but those have been debunked. The simple premise is hard to determine because we only comprehend things lower or on our level.
I already explained why Immutability follows from the Tier 0 definition I gave here. This is the post where I explained the proposal, so I assumed you read it, given you seemed familiar with the premise of it, at least.
DeMatteis' conception of God certainly is Tier 0, yeah. He did insert this conception into the Marvel Cosmology, but with my revisions conflating his "Divine Creator" with TOAA, the hope of Marvel actually reaching 0 kind of falls apart (Until Al Ewing introduces his "Godhead," that is)
I suggested a "Tier 12" for those cases (Which would also encompass characters who are below dimensionality, instead of above it). Basically 1-A but upside-down. People seem to not like the suggestion and want to keep those things at 11-C, though, so, that's how it be.
I think it's simply better to leave Matteis's depiction of God alone since he based it on the Indian philosopher. That's why he always told us he was referring to his depiction of God and our depiction of said “God” is just as valid.
This would apply even if these layers have their own dimensionality, I guess. Same way a 4D from a higher layer can be 1A, one from a lower than baseline layer would be 11C?
Isn't that just the title of witches who go beyond when they reach that certain domain? That would probably scale Ange.
With that being said Pralaya could be possibly 0. She is the Beyond-Beyond and the unconscious of God and the embodiment of the Illusion as Maya is to the Dream. She is the only being not dreamt by God although she is still part of him.
I find that doubtful, myself. If I recall correctly, DeMatteis does explicitly say that God (or "The Smile," as he calls it in that story) is beyond even Mahapralaya. She doesn't give me the impression of being co-equal with the Divine Presence.
Well, God is always beyond everyone but even he dreamed of Creation through her. The God we see in Seekers manifested from the Primal Ocean which once was the ocean of nothing before becoming the ocean of love. She is the origin point for everything and transcends Maya who defines the Dream itself as the thebposspoite shadow of the Magician. She will consume the Creator in the end and repeat the Brahma Sleep until all comes back to the original state of God.
That's the problem and what I'm questioning, you separating the lack of actuality and punctuality from everything you said, an illogical exception, It's a distinction you're giving that "The reason you're giving" applies to all concepts and not just immutability.
