1-A and Large Size

[KingPin0422]

Several months ago, Type 11 Large Size was removed on the basis that size could not be applied to 1-A characters in any meaningful capacity.

HOWEVER, I have several problems with the thread:

To start, the decision was made based on the opinions of two people. Not only that, but there was very little discussion had. I kid you not, there were only fourtee posts in total on that thread. You can find it here.

Secondly, as I already mentioned, the premise of the OP's argument was that size is a spatial quality, and since 1-A transcends the concept of space, by extension they transcend size. This is perfectly valid... but then they go on to say that because 1-A is above size, Type 11 Large Size shouldn't exist. The issue I have with this is that there can exist metaphysical analogues of size.

At the very least, I want a more thorough explanation of why Type 11 Large Size cannot exist.

 

[Chartate101]

While I know very little about the tiers above 3, I do find it off that only 2 people were involved and 14 posts.

 

[ShadowWarrior1999]

1-A is beyond the concept of dimensions, and size has to do with dimensions.

 

[Chartate101]

But regardless of that, there still should have been an actual discussion, not a dozen posts between 2 people. I suggest you ask Ant to give a look

 

[KingPin0422]

I would also like to bring up that Dimensionless Existence specifically lists Large Size as a possible use.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

The Thread about removing Large Size for 1-As seemed to revolve entirely around semantics, to be honest.

This is the same line-of-thinking that made we remove Outerversal range and replace it with "Irrelevant", something which comes from the faulty notion that 1-As have to necessarily be like the Outer Gods and transcend all conceptions of Size / Perspective and Boundaries on all levels. I agree with the OP in that there can be still metaphysical analogues of Size beyond dimensions, and can actually name characters who are / were explicitly Transdual and unbound by the concepts of Space and dimension, yet are encompassed by greater entities which are Infinite and Abstract even in their perspective.

 

[Sera_EX]

>Size cannot be applied to 1-A

Nonsense. Yog-Sothoth and all Type 3 beyond-dimensional beings are extraordinarily larger than Type 2s. Example? Every Outer God is just an infinitesimal part of Yog Sothoth.

Size is irrelevant to a 1-A, yet Lucifer was floating within the infinite vastness of the Overvoid/Monitor Mind.

Type 11 exists, change my mind with reliable examples from fiction and not semantics pulled from your subjective interpretation.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Sewa wins.

 

[Wokistan]

I do agree that not everything is the outer God's. While size as we concieve it isn't really a thing at that level, "size" can still exist in a relative fashion. Most of what we use to describe 1-As as is can only really be applied in a relative manner as is, and size is no different.

 

[KingPin0422]

I don't care that we don't use the term. I care that every time the word is brought up when talking about the Marvel cosmology, the "omniverse is a nonsensical term meaning all of reality and fiction" which I constantly have debunked as the real nonsense.

Wrong thread lol

 

[Sera_EX]

Talk about a chaotic afternoon. Removed it.

 

[Wokistan]

I've done it before too. Replied to it on the other thread though.

 

[Sera_EX]

No seriously, I'm very disappointed that thread was made and I was never told about it. After all, I made the page. Plus the little amount of discussion is...pitiful to be honest.

 

[Wokistan]

It doesn't seem like anyone was really told about it, lol. I confused it for a message wall post at first. Considering that, I doubt it was personal or anything.

 

[Sera_EX]

I know it wasn't personal but my god, but surely it would've been considered that I would have some light to shed on the topic is all I'm saying.

 

[Antvasima]

It seems like me and Assaltwaffle may have made a mistake in accepting the change, and that type 11 should be restored then. It is probably best to ask him to comment here though.

 

[Antvasima]

I don't care that we don't use the term. I care that every time the word is brought up when talking about the Marvel cosmology, the "omniverse is a nonsensical term meaning all of reality and fiction" which I constantly have debunked as the real nonsense.

Which thread was this post intended for?

 

[Agnaa]

I've asked him to comment here.

 

[Agnaa]

@Ant That post was intended for this thread.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thanks.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

I agree with the restoration

 

[InfiniteBlack123]

What about Whis's explanation of Zeno's power.


https://youtu.be/6Vnct7S51dw


Reguardless of scale and complexity of a structure it can erase all of reality.

 

[Agnaa]

No since we don't take statements of no limits as actually having no limits.

 

[InfiniteBlack123]

Not really true for series like Umineko who entire tier status is based on statement from characters.

 

[Agnaa]

We take statements from characters, we don't take statements of having no limits as having no limits.

"I can erase anything regardless of scale and complexity" isn't accepted, but "I can erase things beyond any possible dimension of time or space" is.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

I have no strong opinion one way or the other, but it would need a better explanation, as "size" is inherently a dimensional quality and you'd need a definition change to properly accommodate 1-As.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

If we think of size more as the extent of something, or encompassment, then it would make more sense to understand on a 1-A scale

 

[ProspectX]

According to a outerverse; Furthermore an outerverse is typically inexplicable, with no current scientific theories explaining exactly what a beyond-dimensional structure is. These realities can also lack any form of binary concepts altogether, so any portrayal of an "outerverse" is strictly an artistic vision.

Size and it's notions is by definition a scientific truth, a concept of space-time only relevant in dimensions, it's at best a insignificant form of reality from the perspective of 1-A's. "Infinite vastness" does certainly not equal to size being relevant.

The concepts of space-time and all it's notions are the extreme High 1-B, if you think otherwise then please explain.

Can you please explain what metaphysical analogies of size means?, and how is that relevant to the original definition of size?

 

[Wokistan]

Nothing humanly concievable can truly describe a physical 1-A in an accurate manner, and as such everything up there is relative. This would include "size".

Also, Molecule Ma is 1-A through his powers but 3D physically. Some 1-As aren't beyond all conceptions of size due to things like this.

 

[Sera_EX]

What are you talking about?

 

[Kepekley23]

No.

Size, aside from mass, is entirely a dimensional construct that is only applicable when the character is still bound to them. Those who are 1-A are automatically and absolutely disconnected to it. Only reason why they're still shown with sizes is either because they are taking on a lower form, or because they'd be incomprehensible to the reader were they drawn in their true forms. Ie. convenience.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

@Kep

"Were they drawn in their true forms."

I mean their true forms can't even be conceived by the human mind. We know everything by dimensions and it is impossible to conceptualize what something above them would look like.

 

[Kepekley23]

That's what I said though.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Yog-Sothoth is larger than the Outer Gods. That is like an unarguable example of 1-A size.

 

[Kepekley23]

That's not size. Just some gobbledygook meta-analogue of it.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

And what do you think Type 11 is?

 

[Kepekley23]

I think the Large Size page should be more based on actual size the way we can quantify it. Not vague analogues that aren't.

I say write up a note and leave it at that.

 

[Antvasima]

@Kepekley23

Would you be willing to write such a note?

 

[Antvasima]

Also, the Beyond-Dimensional Existence page needs to be updated in that case.

 

[Kepekley23]

"It should be noted that size as we define it is a concept that measures the magnitude of spatial constructs and, as such, only applies to characters who are bound to dimensions. Characters who are beyond dimensionality should logically completely transcend the concept of size, and the only method to measure their "size" would be comparing them to other beyond dimensional characters in their true forms, and as such are not quantifiable in any meaningful capacity."