• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am contending with the upgrade
I will be busy versy soon i just want to say, contention here is staff vote contention, so even if you or some other members are against the revision, as long as it have enough votes from staff who have voting right, the thread will still get accepted

This is generally speaking
 
OP is essentially assuming that just because Imaginary Space in and of itself (which "could not interfere with objects existing within the space of real numbers" and cannot "produce any sort of meaning" and is therefore doesn't have any AP) has no dimensional information and by extension no dimensional limitations, its power through its ability to project itself in real space must also have no dimensional limitations which is a huge logical jump, and one that we do not accept on this wiki. Our page on BDE straight up says that a character can "lack spatiotemporal features entirely, while not actually being superior to them in nature" as well as "still be[ing] comparable to dimension-bound entities in terms of raw power" which contradicts OP's argument directly. OP has yet to prove that Imaginary Space is full-on Low 1-A rather than simply BDE type 1. It's the same type of argument as "this guy is aspatial therefore his AP must either be 0D or outer."

OP does try to connect Imaginary Space's nature in and of itself with its ability to project itself in real space by appealing to the concept of "additional effort" but that literally makes no sense and is made up entirely.
Why do you keep doing this thing where you isolate 1 or 2 of my premises and then attribute them to the whole argument? You realize the superiority is a synthesis of the nature of the Singularity, Imaginary Space itself and atp HooH as well? None of them prove Low 1-A by themselves. (This is obvious.)

Also the “lacking effort” thing is completely necessary because that’s how you’re supposed to circumvent NLF. A universal of space is 1-A because there is no additional effort when one of it’s particulars is actualized (0+0+0….=0) but if it had “effort” then it has an inherent limitation on the amount of stuff it can actualize
 
Last edited:
but if it had “effort” then it has an inherent limitation on the amount of stuff it can actualize
That is far more reasonable than your proposition. Our wiki standards acknowledge that something with no dimensional limitations in and of itself can still have limitations on its ability to interact with dimensional beings. That's why Vietthai suggested earlier that Imaginary Space is just BDE1. This means that you have to prove that not only does Imaginary Space in and of itself lack dimensional limitations (since it doesn't have dimensional information at all) but also that Imaginary Space's ability to actualize itself in realspace lacks dimensional limitations as well. You have failed to do so.
You realize the superiority is a synthesis of the nature of the Singularity, Imaginary Space itself and atp HooH as well?
Is there something I'm missing about how all of those together somehow prove something that the individual premises don't? Because I have both refuted your "effort" argument and explained how your argument that "all possible quantitative increases can never encapsulate the Imaginary Singularity therefore Low 1-A" is a category error (Imaginary Space in and of itself is NOT "too big" to be a dimensional space, it is simply incomparable to real space).
 
Not what that says 😭 adimensionality ≠ no dimensional limitations (that’s something I’m very clear about)

Is there something I'm missing about how all of those together somehow prove something that the individual premises don't? Because I have both refuted your "effort" argument and explained how your argument that "all possible quantitative increases can never encapsulate the Imaginary Singularity therefore Low 1-A" is a category error (Imaginary Space in and of itself is NOT "too big" to be a dimensional space, it is simply incomparable to real space).
You’re basically just said “you’re just wrong”

Mind you, it’s not that you disagree with the premises or the conclusions of my argument, you just say that “it’s not Low 1-A” completely arbitrarily.
 
Hmm, should put it back i guess
Don’t really see the need for it to be on the list. It’s not like Genshin and it averaging 10+ pages every crt. (Which is one of the reasons why Honkai was removed from the list). Unironically most of the time with the crts getting several pages are just several pages of bumping.

Are you sure about that?
Which Honkai crts were controversial enough to get cooked levels amounts of pages or back and fourth spanning several people barring tier 1 cosmological changes (which is mainly HI3 lol)
 
Not what that says 😭 adimensionality ≠ no dimensional limitations (that’s something I’m very clear about)
That's obviously not true. A dimensional limitation is obviously a limitation of the dimensionality/dimensional qualities of something. Thus, if a thing has dimensional limitations, then it would require said thing to have a dimensionality/dimensional qualities for said dimensional limitation to apply to in the first place. Thus, if something does not have dimensionality/dimensional qualities in and of itself, then it would also not have dimensional limitations (think modus tollens). That is why something like the color green does not have dimensional limitations; it has no dimensional qualities whatsoever. The caveat to this is that said "something"'s ability to interact with dimensional beings/its "raw power" can still have dimensional qualities as well as dimensional limitations, even if the "something" in and of itself lacks dimensional qualities and dimensional limitations by extension.
You’re basically just said “you’re just wrong”

Mind you, it’s not that you disagree with the premises or the conclusions of my argument, you just say that “it’s not Low 1-A” completely arbitrarily.
Have you considered that your other arguments simply don't even imply quantitative superiority? It's in the word: "quantitative" superiority. What, if anything does Imaginary Space have a greater "quantity" of compared to the collection of all possible spaces? It's obviously not bigger since 1. no sources support this idea 2. it doesn't have any form of size to begin with.
 
That's obviously not true. A dimensional limitation is obviously a limitation of the dimensionality/dimensional qualities of something. Thus, if a thing has dimensional limitations, then it would require said thing to have a dimensionality/dimensional qualities for said dimensional limitation to apply to in the first place. Thus, if something does not have dimensionality/dimensional qualities in and of itself, then it would also not have dimensional limitations (think modus tollens). That is why something like the color green does not have dimensional limitations; it has no dimensional qualities whatsoever. The caveat to this is that said "something"'s ability to interact with dimensional beings/its "raw power" can still have dimensional qualities as well as dimensional limitations, even if the "something" in and of itself lacks dimensional qualities and dimensional limitations by extension.
Then you’re just speaking semantics, because it is clear that “no dimensional limitations” here corresponds to the span which it can encompass (which you pretty much mentioned in your second point). Because I’m very sure nobody here would claim a 0-dimensional point has no dimensional limitations. And also the green thing is a category error (not the same as transcendence) because you’re not capable of applying dimensionality to it to begin with in the same manner of how you can’t apply intelligence or stupidity to something that lacks conscience, but you wouldn’t say “a rock has no intellectual limitations”.

Have you considered that your other arguments simply don't even imply quantitative superiority? It's in the word: "quantitative" superiority. What, if anything does Imaginary Space have a greater "quantity" of compared to the collection of all possible spaces? It's obviously not bigger since 1. no sources support this idea 2. it doesn't have any form of size to begin with.
The same “you’re just wrong” I mentioned. Btw, just to ask, do you believe Low 1-A universals are incoherent?
 
Then you’re just speaking semantics, because it is clear that “no dimensional limitations” here corresponds to the span which it can encompass (which you pretty much mentioned in your second point).
No it does not. Neither Imaginary Space nor the Imaginary Singularity "encompass" a span that is unlimited by dimensionality. You have given no proof of that, and I have not conceded to it. I am simply saying that Imaginary Space in and of itself lacks dimensional limitations in the same sense that the color green lacks dimensional limitations. The same does not apply to its ability to project itself into realspace though.
Because I’m very sure nobody here would claim a 0-dimensional point has no dimensional limitations.
Did you read the page? It specifically talks about how 0D points do NOT count as aspatial since they still occupy a definite point in space. 0D points DO have dimensionality and they DO have dimensional limitations (they have a volume limited to zero). Please actually read the standards before making and arguing these types of upgrades. Because what you're describing is literally just BDE1 and you can't find a single way to explain how it could possibly be any different.
The same “you’re just wrong” I mentioned.
No it isn't. I asked you to tell me the quantity in which Imaginary Space is greater than the collection of all dimensional spaces so I could advance my argument. Or in other words, "How is this not just BDE1?" Your failure to answer this question proves my point: there is no quantity relevant to AP in which Imaginary Space is greater than the collection of all dimensional spaces. Thus, it is not quantitatively superior and not Low 1-A.
do you believe Low 1-A universals are incoherent?
Not necessarily. But Imaginary Space isn't a Low 1-A universal so I don't see how this is relevant.
 
No it does not. Neither Imaginary Space nor the Imaginary Singularity "encompass" a span that is unlimited by dimensionality. You have given no proof of that, and I have not conceded to it. I am simply saying that Imaginary Space in and of itself lacks dimensional limitations in the same sense that the color green lacks dimensional limitations. The same does not apply to its ability to project itself into realspace though.
The same “you’re just wrong”

Did you read the page? It specifically talks about how 0D points do NOT count as aspatial since they still occupy a definite point in space. 0D points DO have dimensionality and they DO have dimensional limitations (they have a volume limited to zero). Please actually read the standards before making and arguing these types of upgrades. Because what you're describing is literally just BDE1 and you can't find a single way to explain how it could possibly be any different.
Adimensionality ≠ aspatiality.
And VSBW includes “aspatiality” within “beyond-dimensionality”, so what I’m referring to here is completely different.

(A dimension is expressed by a collection of points; the Real number line for example. A “dimensioned point” is an oxymoron because “dimensioned” is expressed by its multiplicity so it cannot be a quality assigned to the particular)

And also, “you’re just wrong” again.
Not necessarily.
Alr, so, you admit that a Low 1-A thing doesn’t require composition, ye?

So then, when the Singularity encompasses all dimensions within itself, yet without holding them as internal parts (delimiting differentiation), you realize how this is just straight-up Low 1-A, ye?

But Imaginary Space isn't a Low 1-A universal so I don't see how this is relevant.
Doesn’t need to be.
 
It is low 1-A so it need more, and you only have like..... 2 mods, i think you at least need 1 admin and 1 more mod. Also that is in case you don't have contention, if you have contention, you need even more votes to outvote the opposition

Edit: Honkai is a controversial verse iirc, so yeah that thing gonna add-up to the vote requirement
The staff discussion about controversial verses wasn't finished. Honkai isn't a popular series on the site either way. I think the threshold is 3 since I saw former threads like Low 1-A upgrade last year getting passed with around 3?
I am contending with the upgrade.
As if you have authority worth of anything.
 
Last edited:
The staff discussion about controversial verses wasn't finished. Honkai isn't a popular series on the site either way.
You need at least 3 votes with 1 admin vote for this. It's not about popularity at all here. Just the tiers requiring that many.
 
Also lets not act like Honkai isn’t popular as shit…
I wouldn't have to ask for the CM1 downgrade to be switched onto the HI3 category if honkai is a popular verse because being a popular verse would mean you can make up to more than 3 CRTs but we CAN'T MAKE THE 4TH ONE LEGIT BRO, deadass I would've make the trio astral express cast immediately if 4 crts are allowed
 
The staff discussion about controversial verses wasn't finished. Honkai isn't a popular series on the site either way.
Yeah Honkai shouldn't be considered a popular series on the site. (Also, all the verses on the list all have 3 votes enforced on them now)

Also lets not act like Honkai isn’t popular as shit…
This refers to wiki activity and number of supporters. If it was referring to general popularity, then way more verses would be cooked with 3 votes rn.

HSR only has like 4 supporters working on it. @Enryu_The_Red_Tower disappearing again would lead HSR back into the great depression again as they're the main profile creator. When bro disappeared, it tooks MONTHS for the Chrysos Heirs to get a profile despite being MONTHS into the Amphoreus arc. It got so cooked that the only Chrysos Heir member that has a profile was THE TRAILBLAZER.
 
Yeah Honkai shouldn't be considered a popular series on the site. (Also, all the verses on the list all have 3 votes enforced on them now)


This refers to wiki activity and number of supporters. If it was referring to general popularity, then way more verses would be cooked with 3 votes rn.

HSR only has like 4 supporters working on it. @Enryu_The_Red_Tower disappearing again would lead HSR back into the great depression again as they're the main profile creator. When bro disappeared, it tooks MONTHS for the Chrysos Heirs to get a profile despite being MONTHS into the Amphoreus arc. It got so cooked that the only Chrysos Heir member that has a profile was THE TRAILBLAZER.
Hold on, it's not like that, I won't take all the credit, it is not fair, @Aernasilver was also very helpful, since the vast majority of the profiles exist only through the combined efforts of him and me.
 
It works now, but a TLDR and refresh on what staff members voted for and against would be nice. As it looks like the OP only updated the agreeing parts.
 
It works now, but a TLDR and refresh on what staff members voted for and against would be nice. As it looks like the OP only updated the agreeing parts.
There's not really much of a TLDR here tbh, since all of the main arguments proposed are in the thread, other than those who agreed like Vietthai or Qawsedf that are neutral I suppose. I think both of them clarified their stance already since I don't see them being listed against the thread itself but yeah most of the counterarguments as in the opposition is only when Telomera came to the thread since the first 3 pages are just about the scaling in which its decided all of the Aeons just scale to it completely other than CoF but yeah they're the ones who scale

The OP could probably summarize his arguments and then Telomera's arguments against it but yeah that's practically it
 
Anyway, my vote is

I. I disagree with Low 1-A Imaginary Space.

1. As i have said, having no dimensional information and even transcends dimensions stil only land you at BDE Type 1

2. Imaginary Singularity have no dimensional information doesn't make Imaginary Space have no dimension information either

3. We did you get that cannot be ordered in size automatically mean quantitive distinction is delimited?. BDE1 also cannot be ordered in size but isn't mean quantitive distinction is delimited. Also cannot be ordered in size is nature of imaginary number, i think Qaw already said something about this

4. Real Space flows from Imaginary Singularity hardly mean anything, like a physical dimensions flows from void of nothingness is a normal thing in fiction, your logic will make them all Low 1-A. And being BDE1 already made it not qualified as spatial object to begin with. Don't exist in real coordinate space is another supporting point for BDE1, in fact it will be very strange for it to exist in real space

5. Connected to every spatial dimensions. Oke, again hardly mean anything

Anyway, all i see is BDE1.

Yeah, most of this is just due to the nature of Imaginary Space, from what i gathered, the nature of imaginary space is, thing need to be projected into real space to interact, and that imaginary space is non-physical in nature thus it can't ordered in size, aligned with Imaginary Singularity nature of lacking dimensional information. And that it can't interfere with real thing and need to be projected just killing the entire argument about Imaginary is quantitatively superior to real space, because if it was, real space be a mere extension and reduction of imaginary space and it can freely affect real thing.

I will not say the argument is bad, just the interpretation is too high and the foundation for it is shaky

II. HooH argument
This argument seems convincing. It is mostly based on argument that HooH is a nondual being that is the union of all dual concepts. But again being nondual is not necessarily Low 1-A, especially when it not even involving the duality of space-time (space and non-space, time and non-time)

At best, if i'm being lenient, i can only agree with a possibly Low 1-A rating for HooH argument

Other Aeons who equals to HooH is another problem, as HooH and union of all opposites should and is zero-sum should be greater than individual parts of it
 
II. HooH argument
This argument seems convincing. It is mostly based on argument that HooH is a nondual being that is the union of all dual concepts. But again being nondual is not necessarily Low 1-A, especially when it not even involving the duality of space-time (space and non-space, time and non-time)

At best, if i'm being lenient, i can only agree with a possibly Low 1-A rating for HooH argument

Other Aeons who equals to HooH is another problem, as HooH and union of all opposites should and is zero-sum should be greater than individual parts of it
It includes space-time as a duality obviously, it includes all dual concepts so why not? If we have IX that's the opposite of reality to lack space-time altogether and not to mention the same scan that said IX is the opposite of reality includes matter, this matter is also stated to be a concept perceived by Erudition to shape up reality itself with space-time being stated in the scan directly. When it said all the positive and negatives, existence and nonexistence, it should include space-time by default.

We don't need it to be a logical negation against each other like space and not-space, time and not-time, that's only for your nature to get immunity because you're paraconsistent, there is a difference.
 
Last edited:
  1. The Imaginary Singularity lacks all dimensional information.
  2. It does not exist in real space (instead, in Imaginary Space), so it corresponds to no specific spatial coordinate in corporeal space. (It is not literally a 0-dimensional point.)
  3. As it is Imaginary, it cannot be ordered in size in any meaningful way. That is, we can say that 1 < 2 in the set of Real Numbers, but no such principle applies for Imaginary Space, meaning quantitive distinction is delimited within here.
  4. All Real Space flows from the Imaginary Singularity, meaning it itself cannot be qualified as a spatial object, given also the fact that it does not even exist as a coordinate in Real Space to begin with.
  5. It is simultaneously connected to every spatial dimension.
based on this explanation i agree with L1A
  1. Simply put, HooH has dissolved themselves into the “web of logic” behind everything in honkai.
  2. And from this fundamental stance, HooH divides all concepts into dualities, particularly pertaining to Being and Non-Being (that is, IX). Within HooH, there is both P and not-P as undifferentiated.
  3. It itself, is split into two, yet remains wholly joined together as both it’s own existence and its own negation. And it observes everything whilst being unobserved by anything.
  4. If you were to read the dialogue here, you’d realize that as all notions are qualified through HooH, they remain “zero-sum” as both it’s actualization and it’s negation similarly follow from him. As such, there is never an “increase”.
but I'm a little skeptical about scaling to aeons, because I see these aeons showing absolutely no superiority to higher dimensions, would predating the concepts of duality by default be considered beyond dimensionality, yeah I don't think so. so I'm neutral on this one
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top