• 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.

Uncompositing the Dragon Ball Cosmology

Status
Not open for further replies.
Deagonx said:
It's also crazy because GT literally cannot fit into the cosmology of Super.

But a couple of staff have referenced Executor's arguments which dont actually mention GT or the non-canon movies in any capacity, so @Executor_N0 can you expand your explanation to whether or not you think GT or the non-canon movies also fit into that paradigm?


Nothing suggests that the room is filled up with other timelines where we could envision GT as being. Gowasu specifically states that there are only the rings that are in the box and that they increase when a new timeline springs into existence like with future Trunks' time meddling.
Click to expand...
Nothing really about GT or movies fitting into anything really. My point has mostly been to what are direct contributions to Toriyama about something to expand the world. Quoting a certain Dragon Ball Kakarot development interview

Hirota: It's also possible to experience the charm of the relationship with companion characters in the sub-stories. It starts with detailed elements of the original world, but it also has parts that weren't depicted in the TV Anime, so it might be fun to discover new elements. There are also new characters and side stories that were made from new settings we got from Akira Toriyama-sensei.

Interviewer: In this work, there's a new character that was in Toriyama-sensei's concept but didn't appear in the original manga; the debut of Bonyu has become a topic of discussion.

Hirota: About Bonyu, when we asked Toriyama-sensei "Please, tell us the secret story about the formation of the Ginyu Force", he replied "As a matter of fact, there were originally six of them", which led to this character appearing in the game. Sensei was also in charge of the character design. As a matter of fact, everything that was included was the settings given by Toriyama-sensei's answers, and we didn't add anything to it. Therefore, since this is sensei's official setting, you could say this is the new official history of "Dragon Ball Z." I was really shocked, and I first stopped to consider that.

Source: https://funfare.bandainamcoent.co.jp/3813/

Basically, there's a lot of lore that is only mentioned by Toriyama in interviews, like the true backstory of Majin Boo, the truth about the legend of the Super Saiyan and S-Cells, etc. This isn't something he does only for random magazines and books, but he also gets to tell those stories to the development of side material that sometimes will pick that and make something out of that. Like the depiction of Bonyu in DBZK that was entirely based on the answer they got about the "secret story about the formation of the Ginyu Force". And that seems to at least be considered official by those who work on the series.

So at least from the official view, information that was given by Toriyama himself seems to be fair game in Japan about the understanding of the DB, even if it didn't debut in the original manga. There are a lot of nuances to be taken from this (Especially considering how much Toriyama contradicted himself, forgot material, or just decided to change something later on), but I guess if someone really wanted to make use of something that isn't from the manga, but an anime or game as long as there's proof it was there as a note from Toriyama, at least the general concept being valid for the main work could be possible (Like the existence of Bonyu, the otherworld stuff from some filler arcs seems to also have been developed by Toriyama and he later expanded on it in guidebooks, so I guess the otherworld stuff could be valid).
 
Executor_N0 said:
Nothing really about GT or movies fitting into anything really. My point has mostly been to what are direct contributions to Toriyama about something to expand the world. Quoting a certain Dragon Ball Kakarot development interview

Hirota: It's also possible to experience the charm of the relationship with companion characters in the sub-stories. It starts with detailed elements of the original world, but it also has parts that weren't depicted in the TV Anime, so it might be fun to discover new elements. There are also new characters and side stories that were made from new settings we got from Akira Toriyama-sensei.

Interviewer: In this work, there's a new character that was in Toriyama-sensei's concept but didn't appear in the original manga; the debut of Bonyu has become a topic of discussion.

Hirota: About Bonyu, when we asked Toriyama-sensei "Please, tell us the secret story about the formation of the Ginyu Force", he replied "As a matter of fact, there were originally six of them", which led to this character appearing in the game. Sensei was also in charge of the character design. As a matter of fact, everything that was included was the settings given by Toriyama-sensei's answers, and we didn't add anything to it. Therefore, since this is sensei's official setting, you could say this is the new official history of "Dragon Ball Z." I was really shocked, and I first stopped to consider that.

Source: https://funfare.bandainamcoent.co.jp/3813/

Basically, there's a lot of lore that is only mentioned by Toriyama in interviews, like the true backstory of Majin Boo, the truth about the legend of the Super Saiyan and S-Cells, etc. This isn't something he does only for random magazines and books, but he also gets to tell those stories to the development of side material that sometimes will pick that and make something out of that. Like the depiction of Bonyu in DBZK that was entirely based on the answer they got about the "secret story about the formation of the Ginyu Force". And that seems to at least be considered official by those who work on the series.

So at least from the official view, information that was given by Toriyama himself seems to be fair game in Japan about the understanding of the DB, even if it didn't debut in the original manga. There are a lot of nuances to be taken from this (Especially considering how much Toriyama contradicted himself, forgot material, or just decided to change something later on), but I guess if someone really wanted to make use of something that isn't from the manga, but an anime or game as long as there's proof it was there as a note from Toriyama, at least the general concept being valid for the main work could be possible (Like the existence of Bonyu, the otherworld stuff from some filler arcs seems to also have been developed by Toriyama and he later expanded on it in guidebooks, so I guess the otherworld stuff could be valid).
Click to expand...
This is slightly unrelated but is there a possibility that the entire Pikkon/Otherworld tournament arc had any Toriyama involvement?
 
Goku also calls it "Frieza's Hell"
D6hCctH.png
 
Executor_N0 said:
Nothing really about GT or movies fitting into anything really. My point has mostly been to what are direct contributions to Toriyama about something to expand the world. Quoting a certain Dragon Ball Kakarot development interview

Hirota: It's also possible to experience the charm of the relationship with companion characters in the sub-stories. It starts with detailed elements of the original world, but it also has parts that weren't depicted in the TV Anime, so it might be fun to discover new elements. There are also new characters and side stories that were made from new settings we got from Akira Toriyama-sensei.

Interviewer: In this work, there's a new character that was in Toriyama-sensei's concept but didn't appear in the original manga; the debut of Bonyu has become a topic of discussion.

Hirota: About Bonyu, when we asked Toriyama-sensei "Please, tell us the secret story about the formation of the Ginyu Force", he replied "As a matter of fact, there were originally six of them", which led to this character appearing in the game. Sensei was also in charge of the character design. As a matter of fact, everything that was included was the settings given by Toriyama-sensei's answers, and we didn't add anything to it. Therefore, since this is sensei's official setting, you could say this is the new official history of "Dragon Ball Z." I was really shocked, and I first stopped to consider that.

Source: https://funfare.bandainamcoent.co.jp/3813/

Basically, there's a lot of lore that is only mentioned by Toriyama in interviews, like the true backstory of Majin Boo, the truth about the legend of the Super Saiyan and S-Cells, etc. This isn't something he does only for random magazines and books, but he also gets to tell those stories to the development of side material that sometimes will pick that and make something out of that. Like the depiction of Bonyu in DBZK that was entirely based on the answer they got about the "secret story about the formation of the Ginyu Force". And that seems to at least be considered official by those who work on the series.

So at least from the official view, information that was given by Toriyama himself seems to be fair game in Japan about the understanding of the DB, even if it didn't debut in the original manga. There are a lot of nuances to be taken from this (Especially considering how much Toriyama contradicted himself, forgot material, or just decided to change something later on), but I guess if someone really wanted to make use of something that isn't from the manga, but an anime or game as long as there's proof it was there as a note from Toriyama, at least the general concept being valid for the main work could be possible (Like the existence of Bonyu, the otherworld stuff from some filler arcs seems to also have been developed by Toriyama and he later expanded on it in guidebooks, so I guess the otherworld stuff could be valid).
Click to expand...
I see.

The way I see it, if the main thing element that's being carried over at all is something that Toriyama created, not something unique to GT, then I have no issues with keeping that. However, I still thing the evidence is strongly in favor against considering GT and non-canon movies as being within the main DB cosmology given that the number of timelines we are shown and the mechanism for the creation of those timelines isn't compatible with them being included.
 
MeiouHades said:
This is slightly unrelated but is there a possibility that the entire Pikkon/Otherworld tournament arc had any Toriyama involvement?
Click to expand...
He sure had. Pikkon we know that it got a design by Toriyama, but we can't be sure if his backstory was also by Toriyama. Take most of the movie villains, a lot of them had designs by Toriyama himself, but he seemed to not have anything about the story, in fact, he even forgot that he had designed Broly and that became a joke in the fanbase.

That is why, considering DBs long history with retcons and no attempt to bring everything together as other series, using this other material could be more for support evidence at best considering we can't be sure of anything.

We know, for example, that the weakness Piccolo has to high-frequency noises depicted in Movie 4 was a setting made by Toriyama, we also know that the whole Otherworld structure and the 4 Kaios and the Dai-Kaio used in the Otherworld tournament arc were all also from Toriyama. In fact, the anime depicts stuff that we know is from Toriyama and just never got into the manga, like the celestial airplanes that send people to Heaven.

So, I'm almost sure there's a way to make use of Anime or even Game material in some cases when we know they got it from Toriyama in more than just "he designed it". If he gave the idea and later even expanded on those concepts, it seems fair game. Most of the otherworld background in the anime seems to fit with that, at least during some early filler arcs.
 
Deagonx said:
I see.

The way I see it, if the main thing element that's being carried over at all is something that Toriyama created, not something unique to GT, then I have no issues with keeping that. However, I still thing the evidence is strongly in favor against considering GT and non-canon movies as being within the main DB cosmology given that the number of timelines we are shown and the mechanism for the creation of those timelines isn't compatible with them being included.
Click to expand...
That’s not exactly what he’s saying though. He’s arguing that elements that Toriyama is known to have worked on (video game Ginyu force, Otherworld filler cosmology, etc) should still be valid to use, which essentially ties in to Omega’s second option and also what Lephyr agrees with
 
ProfectusInfinity said:
I feel like this would actually help our argument enormously. The DBS anime and BOG movie are different entities, so if GT happens after BOG rather than DBS, the contradictions brought on by DBS are irrelevant. And with the statements of the movies being different dimensions from the manga at least, that would mean...

-The movies are canon to the manga as parallel worlds through Toriyama's statement about them taking place in different dimensions.

-The movies are canon to the Toeiverse since GT happens after BOG (not DBS, since there are contradictions against GT happening after, just BOG movie).

Shouldn't this be a clear Manga-Toeiverse link? The GT timeline is a parallel timeline to the manga since it's the same timeline as the Battle of Gods movie, which takes place in a parallel timeline from the manga via Toriyama's statement about the movies.

Even so, these spaces being described canonically would prove that all cosmology statements from GT are valid to use, would it not?

As explained in Luffy's 2-B cosmology thread (keep in mind, an attempt to downgrade that was rejected recently), the green time rings emerge when parallel worlds are created by interference with causality (mainly through time travel), and the silver rings represent natural timelines. With Dragon Ball Heroes, for instance (I know I'm going a little off topic), many people have tried to debunk the 2-A cosmology under a similar basis as DeagonX's argument that characters are consistently surprised when parallel timelines are created, and the timelines have been stated to have a "finite capacity."

However, this argument can be debunked by the fact that Dragon Ball makes a clear distinction between natural timelines (of which there are no less than several dozen billion in Heroes) and divergent timelines. Hence why depictions of the timelines being finite apply to the rarity of divergent timelines and their chaotic effects on the rest of the multiverse.

Even without the statements by Pilaf and others, as well as the guy from the interview article, we know there are explicitly countless timelines as seen here.
Click to expand...
This scan too

as it’s stated verbatim “This depicts a story from the future world where the teenage Trunks is from. In brief, it is an event from a different history than the one advanced in the original work of TV series.”

I noticed the summary said that the counter to the scan is that it’s only referring to history in a meta contextual sense or something, but it’s quite literally stated to be a future world and an event of an alternate history from the original work and T.V series. We know that this is indeed the backstory of the Future Trunks in the anime and that his history of trunks isn’t the same as the manga version but despite that this is still considered a ”future world” and “alternate history.” At the worst I could see if it’s argued that the Z Anime/Kai itself is its own timeline, but DBS doesn’t really contradict this extending to GT either.

Deagonx said:
I see.

The way I see it, if the main thing element that's being carried over at all is something that Toriyama created, not something unique to GT, then I have no issues with keeping that. However, I still thing the evidence is strongly in favor against considering GT and non-canon movies as being within the main DB cosmology given that the number of timelines we are shown and the mechanism for the creation of those timelines isn't compatible with them being included.
Click to expand...
Timelines can be created naturally, as see this with Beerus destroying Zamasu creating a timeline, and Trunks stating that worlds can be made from the smallest changes. This doesn’t mean that time traveling can’t create timelines too, but the 2 aren’t mutually exclusive. There’s countless time boxes and we don’t know what caused the creation for each individual timeline.
 
TheGodOfICE777 said:
Timelines can be created naturally, as see this with Beerus destroying Zamasu creating a timeline
Click to expand...
That's not natural, though. Trunks went to the past to create that change.

TheGodOfICE777 said:
There’s countless time boxes and we don’t know what caused the creation for each individual timeline.
Click to expand...
It's purely an assumption that this storage room is only used for time rings, and it could just be that they are copies of the set rather than unique timelines.
 
Deagonx said:
That's not natural, though. Trunks went to the past to create that change.
Click to expand...
Wrong! Whis specifically states that Beerus is a hypocrite since him destroying Zamasu is what spawned the timeline Trunks went into. Trunks didn’t create that, rewatch the anime where they’re having dinner after the arc is almost done.
Deagonx said:
It's purely an assumption that this storage room is only used for time rings, and it could just be that they are copies of the set rather than unique timelines.
Click to expand...
Occam’s Razor. Also what do you mean by “copies” of the set? Are you suggesting one timeline can have multiple rings? You’re gonna need to prove that
 
MeiouHades said:
Wrong! Whis specifically states that Beerus is a hypocrite since him destroying Zamasu is what spawned the timeline Trunks went into. Trunks didn’t create that, rewatch the anime where they’re having dinner after the arc is almost done.

Occam’s Razor. Also what do you mean by “copies” of the set? Are you suggesting one timeline can have multiple rings? You’re gonna need to prove that
Click to expand...
You're right, timelines got created when people weren't even time traveling
 
BestMGQScalerEver said:
Gonna step in a bit and say this since I don't think MWI is really up to debate. Timelines are not only created by time travel but also moment to moment actions. MWI existing does not prove the existence of Toei/GT as a timeline however.
Screenshot_61.png
Click to expand...
This shouldn't be used as evidence. This is just some random professor talking about how a multiverse would work IRL
 
Deagonx said:
I see.

The way I see it, if the main thing element that's being carried over at all is something that Toriyama created, not something unique to GT, then I have no issues with keeping that. However, I still thing the evidence is strongly in favor against considering GT and non-canon movies as being within the main DB cosmology given that the number of timelines we are shown and the mechanism for the creation of those timelines isn't compatible with them being included.
Click to expand...
I agree, and in general, the more we move away from "we know for sure Toriyama gave this idea", the less I think it could be generalized. Even old stuff before DBS really exists in this vague "Do they plan to use this in the main series?"

Take the whole DBH/Xenoverse background, it originated from Dragon Ball Online and its background was developed by Toriyama of "what would happen in the future of DB". So many of the elements used in those series like the Time Kaioshin, or even Mechikabura, were all a part of the backstory of what Toriyama called "the sequel to the manga that happens 250 years in the future". So, should we use even that as material because that was made by Toriyama himself of "the future"? Or should the current developments since the movies and DBS change this background? If someone really wants, they might even find a way that the crossovers with DBX and DBH are somehow canon to the main series because "Toriyama made them" (It would be cool if they ever addressed it). I guess that since Towa and Mira appeared in DBZK and that is "official canon from Toriyama himself", maybe there's a connection?.

So, in this whole thing, the more it's "old", "contradicted", or just far removed from "we are sure Toriyama did this", the most of the stuff couldn't be used integrally. A thing or another that does appear in something like the Daizenshuu that isn't specified to be anime only could be fair game.

The Daizenshuu often has two profiles, one for Toriyama original content, and another for anime-only content. Some stuff that is depicted only in anime, but is mentioned without that mark seems to be that it was made by Toriyama or at least broadly accepted as "main content". The stuff about Piccolo's weakness for example, only appears in anime but is listed without the "anime" marker because it was a setting made by Toriyama.
 
MeiouHades said:
Wrong! Whis specifically states that Beerus is a hypocrite since him destroying Zamasu is what spawned the timeline Trunks went into. Trunks didn’t create that, rewatch the anime where they’re having dinner after the arc is almost done.
Click to expand...
That sequences of events occurred because of Trunks time travel.

MeiouHades said:
Occam’s Razor. Also what do you mean by “copies” of the set? Are you suggesting one timeline can have multiple rings? You’re gonna need to prove that
Click to expand...
I don't need to prove that, I am proposing a viable alternative. Can you prove they contain rings from other timelines?
 
Deagonx said:
That sequences of events occurred because of Trunks time travel.
Click to expand...
What in the flying F kind of non-sequitur is that? The sequence of events prior makes NO difference. Whis states that the ACTION of Beerus killing Zamasu is what created that particular timeline. Stop it Deagon.
Deagonx said:
I don't need to prove that, I am proposing a viable alternative. Can you prove they contain rings from other timelines?
Click to expand...
Occam’s Razor. Deagon, learn when to admit you’re wrong please (I need too as well, I’ll admit)
 
MeiouHades said:
What in the flying F kind of non-sequitur is that? The sequence of events prior makes NO difference. Whis states that the ACTION of Beerus killing Zamasu is what created that particular timeline. Stop it Deagon.
Click to expand...
Trunks travelled back in time to alert them to the situation occurring with Goku Black. Beerus would not have killed Zamasu if Trunks had not done that. We know that time travel to the past, creating a paradox, is what creates new timelines. Beerus killing Zamasu is what created the paradox, but this is not a violation of the pattern I am describing above, because it was caused by travelling to the past.

MeiouHades said:
Occam’s Razor. Deagon, learn when to admit you’re wrong please (I need too as well, I’ll admit)
Click to expand...
Occam's Razor is a general heuristic, not a law of logic that allows us to reach un-evidenced conclusions. I do not even necessarily consider yours the simplest solution.
 
Executor_N0 said:
I agree, and in general, the more we move away from "we know for sure Toriyama gave this idea", the less I think it could be generalized. Even old stuff before DBS really exists in this vague "Do they plan to use this in the main series?"

Take the whole DBH/Xenoverse background, it originated from Dragon Ball Online and its background was developed by Toriyama of "what would happen in the future of DB". So many of the elements used in those series like the Time Kaioshin, or even Mechikabura, were all a part of the backstory of what Toriyama called "the sequel to the manga that happens 250 years in the future". So, should we use even that as material because that was made by Toriyama himself of "the future"? Or should the current developments since the movies and DBS change this background? If someone really wants, they might even find a way that the crossovers with DBX and DBH are somehow canon to the main series because "Toriyama made them" (It would be cool if they ever addressed it). I guess that since Towa and Mira appeared in DBZK and that is "official canon from Toriyama himself", maybe there's a connection?.

So, in this whole thing, the more it's "old", "contradicted", or just far removed from "we are sure Toriyama did this", the most of the stuff couldn't be used integrally. A thing or another that does appear in something like the Daizenshuu that isn't specified to be anime only could be fair game.

The Daizenshuu often has two profiles, one for Toriyama original content, and another for anime-only content. Some stuff that is depicted only in anime, but is mentioned without that mark seems to be that it was made by Toriyama or at least broadly accepted as "main content". The stuff about Piccolo's weakness for example, only appears in anime but is listed without the "anime" marker because it was a setting made by Toriyama.
Click to expand...
So what would we do with stuff we don't know that toryama had a hand in it?
 
Deagonx said:
That's not natural, though. Trunks went to the past to create that change.


It's purely an assumption that this storage room is only used for time rings, and it could just be that they are copies of the set rather than unique timelines.
Click to expand...
Trunks statement in Z would still apply.

Can you give an example of when that has happened? We’ve been shown that the time boxes are strictly for time rings so your interpretation would need evidence.

Also can you address this scan that says that Z and Manga are indeed alternate timelines?

TheGodOfICE777 said:
This scan too

as it’s stated verbatim “This depicts a story from the future world where the teenage Trunks is from. In brief, it is an event from a different history than the one advanced in the original work of TV series.”

I noticed the summary said that the counter to the scan is that it’s only referring to history in a meta contextual sense or something, but it’s quite literally stated to be a future world and an event of an alternate history from the original work and T.V series. We know that this is indeed the backstory of the Future Trunks in the anime and that his history of trunks isn’t the same as the manga version but despite that this is still considered a ”future world” and “alternate history.” At the worst I could see if it’s argued that the Z Anime/Kai itself is its own timeline, but DBS doesn’t really contradict this extending to GT either.


Timelines can be created naturally, as see this with Beerus destroying Zamasu creating a timeline, and Trunks stating that worlds can be made from the smallest changes. This doesn’t mean that time traveling can’t create timelines too, but the 2 aren’t mutually exclusive. There’s countless time boxes and we don’t know what caused the creation for each individual timeline.
Click to expand...
 
Deagonx said:
Trunks travelled back in time to alert them to the situation occurring with Goku Black. Beerus would not have killed Zamasu if Trunks had not done that. We know that time travel to the past, creating a paradox, is what creates new timelines. Beerus killing Zamasu is what created the paradox, but this is not a violation of the pattern I am describing above, because it was caused by travelling to the past.
Click to expand...

That settles it, you’re deliberately ignoring what’s written in front of you now. Beerus killing Zamasu is what created that timeline, that ACTION is what created that timeline, why Beerus had to kill Zamasu or what events lead to that point is NOT what created the timeline. You’re literally saying Whis (someone who holds a lot of knowledge on how time works) was wrong when he said BEERUS was a hypocrite for having created that timeline with HIS ACTION
Deagonx said:
Occam's Razor is a general heuristic, not a law of logic that allows us to reach un-evidenced conclusions. I do not even necessarily consider yours the simplest solution.
Click to expand...
List the simplest solution then, I’m all ears. If you can find a simpler one I’m happy with that
 
TheGodOfICE777 said:
Trunks statement in Z would still apply.
Click to expand...
Which statement?

TheGodOfICE777 said:
Can you give an example of when that has happened? We’ve been shown that the time boxes are strictly for time rings so your interpretation would need evidence.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by time boxes?

TheGodOfICE777 said:
Also can you address this scan that says that Z and Manga are indeed alternate timelines?
Click to expand...
It just says it has a different history. It doesn't mean that there's a time ring for it in the canon continuity. There's no rule that's been stated that everything in the entire DB verse has a time ring or exists under the same cosmology.

MeiouHades said:
That settles it, you’re deliberately ignoring what’s written in front of you now. Beerus killing Zamasu is what created that timeline, that ACTION is what created that timeline, why Beerus had to kill Zamasu or what events lead to that point is NOT what created the timeline. You’re literally saying Whis (someone who holds a lot of knowledge on how time works) was wrong when he said BEERUS was a hypocrite for having created that timeline with HIS ACTION
Click to expand...
Nothing about that is contradictory to what I said. Beerus' action was what caused the timeline, but what caused Beerus' action? Trunks time travel. Time travel by itself does not create timelines, a paradox has to occur. Beerus created a paradox by killing Zamasu, so prior to that they were fine, but it's still the case that time travel to the past is what created the paradox because if Trunks had not traveled to the past, Beerus wouldn't have done that.

MeiouHades said:
List the simplest solution then, I’m all ears. If you can find a simpler one I’m happy with that
Click to expand...
Any one of the solutions are fine. They could contain other things, there could be other sets of time rings. There's nothing simpler about your solution, you're only arguing vis-a-vis simplicity because you think Occams Razor must be obeyed, but Occams Razor does not solve a debate. It's not a law of logic or something like that.
 
Deagonx said:
Which statement?


What do you mean by time boxes?


It just says it has a different history. It doesn't mean that there's a time ring for it in the canon continuity. There's no rule that's been stated that everything in the entire DB verse has a time ring or exists under the same cosmology.


Nothing about that is contradictory to what I said. Beerus' action was what caused the timeline, but what caused Beerus' action? Trunks time travel. Time travel by itself does not create timelines, a paradox has to occur. Beerus created a paradox by killing Zamasu, so prior to that they were fine, but it's still the case that time travel to the past is what created the paradox because if Trunks had not traveled to the past, Beerus wouldn't have done that.


Any one of the solutions are fine. They could contain other things, there could be other sets of time rings. There's nothing simpler about your solution, you're only arguing vis-a-vis simplicity because you think Occams Razor must be obeyed, but Occams Razor does not solve a debate. It's not a law of logic or something like that.
Click to expand...
This statement

Each time box has been shown to have rings

It’s called an alternate history and future world being called a future world is literally only exclusive to timelines. I don’t know what you’re going on about some rule when I’m just telling you it’s stated that its a future world and a different history.
 
TheGodOfICE777 said:
This statement
Click to expand...
In the absolute worst case scenario we could just say that's been retconned, but more realistically it's most likely that Trunks just doesn't know as well as Jaco or Gowasu.

TheGodOfICE777 said:
Each time box has been shown to have rings
Click to expand...
How many different distinct time boxes do we see in the series, exactly?

TheGodOfICE777 said:
It’s called an alternate history and future world being called a future world is literally only exclusive to timelines. I don’t know what you’re going on about some rule when I’m just telling you it’s stated that its a future world and a different history.
Click to expand...
That does not mean it fits into the DBS cosmology the way you're claiming, given the information above. The only thing that creates new timelines is paradoxes created when travelling to the past.
 
Deagonx said:
In the absolute worst case scenario we could just say that's been retconned, but more realistically it's most likely that Trunks just doesn't know as well as Jaco or Gowasu.


How many different distinct time boxes do we see in the series, exactly?


That does not mean it fits into the DBS cosmology the way you're claiming, given the information above. The only thing that creates new timelines is paradoxes created when travelling to the past.
Click to expand...
How the hell has it been retconned? This is consistent with how many time boxes were shown. Gowasu and Jaco have never stated there was 6 or 7 timelines.

Countless it was a lot

So you’re claiming it’s contradicted then? No, if you look at statements time travel isn’t the thing that strictly causes timelines. Timelines forcibly creating timelines isn’t mutually exclusive to timelines naturally existing.
 
Deagonx said:
Nothing about that is contradictory to what I said. Beerus' action was what caused the timeline, but what caused Beerus' action? Trunks time travel. Time travel by itself does not create timelines, a paradox has to occur. Beerus created a paradox by killing Zamasu, so prior to that they were fine, but it's still the case that time travel to the past is what created the paradox because if Trunks had not traveled to the past, Beerus wouldn't have done that.
Click to expand...
Deagon, buddy, pay attention. You’re literally conceding the original points with the first 2 lines I bolted. In the second two lines I bolted, you’re literally contradicting yourself? Is Beerus the cause of the paradox, or is it time travel by trunks? Make it makes sense, because it doesn’t make any right now.
Also “Beerus wouldn’t have done that” is irrelevant. Zamasu getting killed is what caused that, plain and simple

Also Whis VERBATIM states that Beerus killing Zamasu is what spawned the timeline, everything else you’ve written to “explain“ it is about the most boring and uninteresting headcanon I’ve seen here. I’ll take Whis’s word over yours if you don’t mind.

Deagonx said:
Any one of the solutions are fine. They could contain other things, there could be other sets of time rings. There's nothing simpler about your solution, you're only arguing vis-a-vis simplicity because you think Occams Razor must be obeyed, but Occams Razor does not solve a debate. It's not a law of logic or something like that.
Click to expand...
What other things? Others sets of time rings? To which timelines? The same ones? That makes 0 sense lorewise. Why would 1 timeline have multiple pairs of rings? That’s your “simple” solution? Once again, the epistemological razor suggests that they contain rings to other timelines, to assume anything else you need proof, or an even simpler argument which you haven’t provided yet
 
Last edited:
MeiouHades said:
Deagon, buddy, pay attention. You’re literally conceding the original points with the first 2 lines I bolted. In the second two lines I bolted, you’re literally contradicting yourself? Is Beerus the cause of the paradox, or is it time travel by trunks? Make it makes sense, because it doesn’t make any right now.

Also Whis VERBATIM states that Beerus killing Zamasu is what spawned the timeline, everything else you’ve written to “explain“ it is about the most boring and uninteresting headcanon I’ve seen here. I’ll take Whis’s word over yours if you don’t mind.
Click to expand...
It's simple. Would Beerus have done that if Trunks didn't travel to the past?


MeiouHades said:
What other things? Others sets of time rings? To which timelines? The same ones? That makes 0 sense lorewise. Why would 1 timeline have multiple pairs of rings? That’s your “simple” solution? Once again, the epistemological razor suggests that they contain rings to other timelines, to assume anything else you need proof, or an even simpler argument which you haven’t provided yet
Click to expand...
Other sets of rings is one, there being no other boxes is another (have we actually seen other boxes or are we just assuming that's what the drawers contain?)

All of these options are equal in terms of evidence. Occams Razor isn't useful in picking one, as it's not an absolute rule and all it suggests it that fewer assumptions is better. Assuming there are rings to other unmentioned timelines is an assumption. Assuming there are different sets for the same timelines is an assumption. Assuming there's only one box is an assumption.

There's no evidence to discriminate between these options.
 
Deagonx said:
It's simple. Would Beerus have done that if Trunks didn't travel to the past?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. What specific action causes it? What does Whis say?
Deagonx said:
Other sets of rings is one, there being no other boxes is another (have we actually seen other boxes or are we just assuming that's what the drawers contain?)
Click to expand...
Then those boxes are there for? To act as a showpiece? Is there proof, or is this a simpler argument?
Deagonx said:
All of these options are equal in terms of evidence.
Click to expand...
Even if this is correct (I don’t think it is), why do you dismiss the fact that it can also just contain time rings to other timelines? Considering none of the alternatives are any simpler
Deagonx said:
Occams Razor isn't useful in picking one, as it's not an absolute rule and all it suggests it that fewer assumptions is better. Assuming there are rings to other unmentioned timelines is an assumption. Assuming there are different sets for the same timelines is an assumption. Assuming there's only one box is an assumption
Click to expand...
Yeah, and? Which one is the simpler argument given what we’ve seen and been told in the show?

Gonna be honest I’m getting sick of your stonewalling especially on your Beerus point. In fact do a Mod-only thread for that specific case and see how many agree to what. If you win, I’ll delete my account as concession okay?
 
MeiouHades said:
Irrelevant
Click to expand...
Okay, so you admit that Beerus wouldn't have done it if Trunks didn't travel to the past.

Pretty simple then, Trunks time travel caused a paradox, by causing Beerus' action. The causal chain does not start with Beerus.

MeiouHades said:
Yeah, and? Which one is the simpler argument given what we’ve seen and been told in the show?
Click to expand...
They all involve an equal amount of assumptions, and an equally non existent amount of evidence.

MeiouHades said:
Even if this is correct (I don’t think it is), why do you dismiss the fact that it can also just contain time rings to other timelines? Considering none of the alternatives are any simpler
Click to expand...
Edit: I missed this.

I'm not dismissing it, I just won't assume it's true without direct evidence that disproves the other options.
 
Deagonx said:
Okay, so you admit that Beerus wouldn't have done it if Trunks didn't travel to the past.

Pretty simple then, Trunks time travel caused a paradox, by causing Beerus' action. The causal chain does not start with Beerus.
Click to expand...
But that’s not…what happened…

Beerus’s actions created a new causal chain separate from Trunks’ time traveling shenanigans. (Creating a secondary new timeline compared to the one created by Trunks Traveling in time). That’s what Whis said. No matter how you try to spin it this argument fundamentally doesn’t work, because it assumes that Trunks did more than he actually did, since according to Whis it was all on Beerus.
 
RedReaper said:
But that’s not…what happened…

Beerus’s actions created a new causal chain separate from Trunks’ time traveling shenanigans. (Creating a secondary new timeline compared to the one created by Trunks Traveling in time). That’s what Whis said. No matter how you try to spin it this argument fundamentally doesn’t work, because it assumes that Trunks did more than he actually did, since according to Whis it was all on Beerus.
Click to expand...
Would Beerus have done it without Trunks traveling back in time to inform them about Goku Black?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LuffyRuffy46307
  • Locked
Dragon Ball Special Addition Ki
Replies
19
Views
1K
Damage3245
Damage3245
Ednaxel2
  • Locked
Dragon Ball Toei: Bits & Bobs
Replies
16
Views
2K
Ednaxel2
Ednaxel2
Killerdrone123
  • Locked
To be canon or not to be that is the question.A Dragon ball Super revision
2 3 4
Replies
152
Views
11K
AwkguyDB
AwkguyDB
Omegabronic
  • Locked
Dragon Ball's Main Cannon Timeline number downgrade
4 5 6
Replies
230
Views
17K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
LuffyRuffy46307
  • Locked
Dragon Ball Cosmology Canon
5 6 7
Replies
262
Views
21K
Damage3245
Damage3245
Back
Top