Planck69

Hello, can you close this crt?

Hello Planck. Would you mind giving your input here, please? Thanks in advance.

Hello. Could you help give input here please?

Please we need you to clarify your stance here, as interdimensional range is only between tier 2 structures

do staff votes count in versus matchups?

Damage hasn't responded yet, I want us to wait.

Hello, how can i add myself to Lord Xue Ying verse Supporter list? is there a requirement? Thanks

Sorry for distributing. Can I get your input here

Hi, can I get your input about the 7-D cosmology that I have described here, thanks in advance.

Hello. I want to make a downgrade thread for God of War, but I don't want to make too much of a risk making a thread with points that have already been addressed and refuted. Thus, I will discuss my points with you first. I saw the God of War upgrade thread you made, which is essentially based on scaling the Yggdrasil, Light of Alfheim, and Primordial Magic to the Realm Between Realms, the extent of the Realm Between Realms being established in this thread. Now, I agree with scaling characters such as Kratos to the Realm Between Realms, but I disagree with scaling the Realm Between Realms to Low 1-C in the first place.

Your reasoning for scaling the Realm Between Realms is that it is "a structure that occupies the center of the spiritual void of the Realm Between Realms, which exists outside all of the Nine Realms and acts as a higher order space that these parallel 4-dimensional realities are displaced across." However, this does not scale to 5D or Low 1-C. The Nine Realms in God of War have never been shown to be infinite in spatial size. They do indeed have their own spacetimes, but that is not proof of infinite size spatially. Spacetimes can certainly be finite, as shown both in fiction through the concept of pocket dimensions, and also in real life cosmology. Even if the axis of time extends infinitely (which is also something that hasn't been shown in GOW) for each of these realms, there is no proof that they each have infinite spatial extent. Now, the thing is, finite 4D dimensions ("dimensions" in this context referring to "worlds") can be contained within a larger 4D space rather than 5D space. Think of it as an ocean that contains and encompasses bubbles inside of it. The bubbles are contained by the ocean, but still have the same dimensionality as the ocean. There is no need to jump to a higher dimension to explain the Realm Between Realms, or the Yggdrasil, Light of Alfheim, and Primordial Magic by extension. You don't have to agree with this, but if it is a new argument rather than one that was already refuted, I can make a new thread for this.

Hey plancks, can you check out this thread?

Hello. Apparently I need permission to post on this thread, so could I have some permission? The thread is very long and I'm not sure if something that's essentially the same as my take's been raised already, so here's mine, please tell me if it's good/I can post it. Theoretically you could give me permission without reading my take as well, but I would appreciate feedback:

/my take begins here
In my opinion, superiority to dimensionality as Ultima puts it is illogical and contradictory. For one example of how it can easily lead to contradictions, consider a character who is aspatial as opposed to being dimensional, and is inaccessibly more powerful than all dimensional beings and is superior to dimensionality as a whole in terms of power due to their aspatiality. This is something that is explicitly brought up by Ultima and is viewed as perfectly valid. Now take a character who is dimensional as opposed to being aspatial. This second character is treated as being inaccessibly superior to all aspatial beings in power due to their dimensionality. This in and of itself should not be a problem by Ultima's standards. To say otherwise is special pleading, as it is viewed to be perfectly fine for there to be "a character who has X characteristic, and is inaccessibly more powerful than all characters of Y characteristic due to having X characteristic (AKA the "mechanism attached to it that justifies its limitlessness" as Ultima called it)." Hopefully one can see the problem here. The two characters are completely contradictory, and there is no way of scaling the two if you take both descriptions as true. The first character would be stronger than the second character due to being stronger than all dimensional characters, with the second character being a dimensional character. However, the second character would also be stronger than the first character due to being stronger than all dimensional characters, with the first character being a dimensional character. This results in both characters being both inaccessibly stronger and inaccessibly weaker than the other. This is a contradiction.

From my understanding, this problem arises from allowing the arbitrarily decision of whether dimensionality or non-dimensionality is inaccessibly superior in power (or perhaps neither!) This is because one can arbitrarily decide that dimensionality is the more powerful end of the spectrum, whereas another can arbitrarily decide that non-dimensionality is more powerful. Allowing both decisions to be made inevitably allows for contradictions. These sorts of statements of "being superior to dimensionality" are essentially a category error (as mentioned by Ultima) of attributing "power" to "whether or not something is dimensional," an attribute which neither possesses power nor is it inherently connected to a certain level of power. The only solution is to either prohibit both of these arbitrary decisions (that is, to disregard both the idea of being "superior to dimensionality" and the idea of being "superior to non-dimensionality") or to prohibit one of them. The former must be implemented due to the latter being special pleading, as both arbitrary decisions are equally plausible. There is no logical reason to believe non-dimensionality is superior to dimensionality or vice versa other than "the author said so." Unfortunately, as demonstrated here, these would be author statements that inherently lead to contradictions and thus must be discarded.

/my take on RF transcendence begins here
The argument placed forth about reality-fiction vs quantitative superiority is likewise flawed. Reality-fiction differences are considered as being greater than dimensional differences due to the fact that the "RF-superior" (for lack of a better term) side views the "RF-inferior" side as literally being zero or nothing, and thus, no mathematical operation can possibly bring the "RF-inferior" side, which is zero, up to the level of the "RF-superior" side, which is non-zero. On the other hand, dimensional differences are said to simply be solved by infinite multiplication as a cube is said to be the sum of infinite squares. Since the former is such a large difference such that no mathematical operation can bridge the gap, whereas the latter can be bridged by simple infinite summation, the former ie RF transcendence must be treated as inherently greater than the latter ie dimensional transcendence, or so the argument goes. However, this line of argumentation causes a large problem considering a statement made later by Ultima, that being that "the square has 0 volume." Unlike what Ultima later said about a cube actually being the sum of infinite squares, a cube (which inherently has non-zero volume) CANNOT be formed from infinite squares (each of which is said to have zero volume). Ultima says in his post that "the principles behind operations on the empty set do not apply to it ["it" referring to the null set of the square]", but this just isn't true. It still holds for the null set of the square that multiplication of infinite zeros (zero volume) does not and cannot add up to a non-zero quantity (cube with non-zero volume.

Now, this doesn't NECESSARILY have to invalidate Ultima's reasoning. We can simply view a square as having infinitesimal volume as opposed to zero volume. Then Ultima's point of cubes actually being the sum of infinite squares could make sense. I would actually view this as optimal considering the fact that higher dimensional beings in fiction, even when they are infinitely superior, often do NOT view lower dimensional beings as literal zero/nothingness. Additionally, it allows for compactification as an explanation for higher dimensional beings lacking infinite superiority to lower dimensional beings (that being that these higher dimensional beings practically only have infinitesimal extension in their extra dimension, or something like that, thus making them comparable in power to lower dimensional beings and vice versa).

However, there is still a problem with the approach to reality-fiction transcendence. In a verse where RF transcendence happens with RF-inferior beings are treated as zero, the RF-inferior humans for example are literally zero/nothingness. However, in verses where there is no RF transcendence, the human baseline of the verse is NOT zero. With Ultima's approach, the "zero-humans" would be viewed as equivalent to the "nonzero humans." It's arbitrary and quite ridiculous from a certain point of view to equate humans that are literally zero/nothingness to humans that are NOT zero and actually exist within the verse. We can equate them with our own arbitrary standards for the sake of having a fun matchup, but we should acknowledge that it is just as valid to simply equate RF-superior humans that actually exist in one verse to humans from another verse that does not have any form of RF transcendence, since they are both beings that actually exist and are non-zero within the verse rather than being zero (if the RF-superior beings aren't literal zero compared to even more RF-superior beings, that is). Ideally, this should be signified on the actual tier of the profile. For example: "0 if you use the RF-inferior beings as a baseline, 7-B if you use the RF-superior beings as a baseline" I can understand if this is too much of a hassle, but we should affirm the fact that it is just as valid to use the most RF-superior beings within a verse as the baseline as it is to use the beings that the story focuses on as the baseline.

Additionally, if this approach to RF transcendence really was to be taken, the standards for what is considered to be RF transcendence need to be MUCH stricter, along with the burden of proof being to actually prove that the allegedly RF-superior beings literally view the allegedly RF-inferior beings as zero/nothingness.

/my take on RF transcendence and my entire take in general end here

What do you think?

Hello, can you take a look at this when you are free?

Hi, if you could help with these questions, I would be grateful.
https://vsbattles.com/threads/questions-about-nonexistent.161300/

Hello, Planck. Sorry to bother you but would you mind me asking a question?

In Han Soo downgrade thread you stated that:

- You need to first confirm whether the 4-dimensional space is actually 4 spatial dimensions or a space-time continuum of some sort.

- You need to prove the time dimension is orthogonal to the towers. As in, there's an overaching temporal axis or timeline independent of this space that actually treats the 4-dimensional space the way a regular timeline treats 3-dimensional beings within it.

Click to expand...

This bits confuse me. I can understand that for a regular 4D space-time continuum require proof higher temporal in nature to have it having distinction from the first temporal axis. In other word, the second temporal axis must be in different direction from the first one like the axis being berpendicular to the first temporal etc etc so that uncountable infinite snapshots of the space-time continuum thus 5D. But does it really need to for an actual already presented 4D spatial dimension? I mean to those with all four Spatial dimensions rather than 3D+1Time dimension. There no need for having distinction between temporal dimension like the first case about regular space-time continuum.

In summary, does it really necessary to have higher temporal axis for already 4D spaces to get low 1-C? Can’t a regular temporal dimension work here?

In off chance, If I misunderstood your words actually meant, then I am sorry.

Sorry bother you, can you give your input here? It would be appreciated

Hey planck, since you participated in my previous thread, could I ask your opinion on this last thread?

Can you check this out when you're free?

Could you check this out?

Sorry to bother you, but if you have time, can you look at this?

plank bro please help me
you know how you're not allowed to use end of series ragna in vs matches?
i created this arale vs ragna thread and everyone thought i was using eos ragna and embarrassed me in front of everyone, even tho im using his 2nd last key
could you unlock the thread?

Could you give your opinion here? Thanks

Can you take a look at this topic?

Hello, this thread was put on hold as there was no consensus reached regarding Tier 1 Dragon Ball.
If there is currently an agreement reached, could you please reopen this thread?

Hello Planck
Your aware of the Tier 1 DB cosmology thread
The Grace period has passed and my friends have asked me to request permission if we can start applying the changes now?

Sorry bother you, can you give your input?

If you're not Mega busy, would you mind leaving an input here?

Has the God Of War Ragnarok discussion thread been deleted? I'm looking in the search bar and I can't find '-'

Hello

Cab you check this thread, please?

Hello Planck,

My JJK ability thread is wrapping up and since you responded to both the ontology thread and the upgrade thread I was wondering if you could contribute your stance on void manip. Grath reached out to other mods who posted in the thread but I forgot you posted earlier. Link to Grath's comment for summary can be found below

I am nuking Lavos' verse for real.

I think I know a couple verses that may match DTs description

Hey plancks, can u check out this thread? My previous thread already passed before standard revision started so I'd to create new one based of new statements.

Ben 10: downgrade, upgrade & re-re-justification.

Like, fundamentally you could say that you have one timeline that spans multiversal space. In the beginning, that space is empty. Then you rewrite the past so that 3 universes already existed in the space (which is the same as creating 3 timelines). So you rewrite the timeline of the multiversal...

vsbattles.com

'Eya, can you have your staff input on this CRT for me? Thanks in advance.

Can I get permission to reply once, in that thread in regards to the standard of time dimension? There is one piece that I'd like to express.

My thread needs some staff as well

Could you give us your opinion on this crt ? Something you have a lot of knowledge about.

hello, could you give input in this thread when you have time?