- 12,297
- 5,562
No idea
-
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.
1-A Clarification
- Thread starter Kuuzo7
- Start date
- Status
- 18,393
- 14,323
It is because you are “transcendental” from the concept of dimensions, if you understand what I mean.
- 18,393
- 14,323
So I was not wrong at all, he was tending it to upgrade a character from DC comic. Haha.
- 126
- 45
- Thread starter
- #164
Never said otherwise slow minded.
Michael = / = "DB Comic".
- 18,393
- 14,323
Yayaya.
- 2,151
- 2,107
1-A is Aleph-2D though, what does being transcendent over the concept of dimensions have to do with Aleph-2D?
- 18,393
- 14,323
Ask them, not me. I am anyways against it lol.
- 126
- 45
- Thread starter
- #168
1-A transcendant = / = 1-A "Outversal".
Did you even read the previous thread?
- 2,151
- 2,107
Yeah but the current tiering system isnt based on incomprehensibility, transcendence and all that stuff
- 126
- 45
- Thread starter
- #170
- 18,393
- 14,323
I know my facts, and I still stand to it. It was an attempt to upgrade DC comic to 1-A.
Either way, it became derailing now. brb
Either way, it became derailing now. brb
- 126
- 45
- Thread starter
- #172
If did you follow the previous thread and this one, the argument that "the current tierring system does not accept transcendence " is not worh a dime, as it does not contradict the fact that this character, as I said, would still be above any dimension defined by a set of natural numbers, as it's used in fiction, in maths and theorical science, therefore can't be classified as High 1-B (High 1-B: High Hyperverse level).
- 12,297
- 5,562
Agreed
- 2,151
- 2,107
Why specifically the set of all naturals?
why just not all Numbers that can be used to define spatial complexity?
why just not all Numbers that can be used to define spatial complexity?
- 126
- 45
- Thread starter
- #175
That's where I was getting at.
"Why specifically the set of all naturals?"
Maybe it's because how most fiction defines the dimensionality of their universe (at least 4-dimensional) , and how most fiction that acknowledges extra-dimensions still used the same set of numbers (5-D,6 D, 7-D, etc.)
That's logical.
- 126
- 45
- Thread starter
- #176
I'm waiting to see at least ONE fictional's setting defining the dimensionality of their universe by alephs like this wiki does, instead of commonly using the same set of numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) across fictional's works.
Last edited:
- 13,819
- 3,802
Darksmash
He/Him- 1,494
- 1,640
I am getting bored of the useless back and forth so I will just get to the point
Where's your proof that "most fictions treat it that way"?
What's your reason for limiting "concept of space" to any natural number dimensions?
Where's your proof that "most fictions treat it that way"?
Vietthai96
He/Him- 10,168
- 14,462
Seriously, this is just another when you create a concept of space, mean you create the all layer of physical dimension which highest is Low 1-A, then you independent from it thus you 1-A. Simply a NLF claim
- 12,297
- 5,562
Agreed FRA
- 6,185
- 16,385
Just stopping here to add that this is not necessarily the case, at all. It doesn't follow that some abstraction of "space" encompasses all extrapolations of any object that falls under it, and nor is it incoherent for this abstraction to be something that is immanent within reality and only encompasses what currently exists (i.e What instantiates it). That's a whole school of thought in philosophy, so treating your claim as if it was the only logical option is, plain and simple, just dishonest.
At the end of the day, we'll always have to default to something, and if the higher option is not necessarily the only conclusion you can draw from a statement, usually you go with the more conservative one, which often tends to be lower. Similarly, we'd naturally default to an immanent interpretation of concepts (Or, more accurately, Universals), where for instance making the concept of space in a setting containing objects of up to 5 dimensions would be Low 1-C. Certainly you can argue that statements like "Transcends dimensions!" Or "beyond space!" can have a good baseline that doesn't skyrocket up to 0 depending on the verse (Since the gap between n dimensions and n+1-dimensions, for all n, is the same, and it's not terribly hard to picture a case where the difference between Realm X and Realm Y may be greater than this value), but this is not really something that has much of an impact in a case (i.e This one) where we're arguing about a generalized, contextless hypothetical.
Last edited:
- 12,297
- 5,562
^ bro is spitting fire
- 9,982
- 10,821
I agree
- 9,982
- 10,821
He meant that even our tiering system is nothing but just based of number of dimensions, so if something is entirely independent of whatever number of dimensions or entirely transcend the nature of such spaces who holds the property to have dimensions, should be way higher,
but as per FAQ page it's low 1a, which doesn't makes sense.It's obvious that faq page has decided for a verse to get such high tier's without that high cosmology which inherently means that cosmology do not matter any longer and so it's way higher.
Last edited:
- 6,185
- 16,385
I do agree "any amount of them" is a misleading description, yeah. I'd like to expand that section and the adjacent ones a lot, in fact, so, wouldn't be opposed to rewriting it, myself.He meant that even our tiering system is nothing but just based of number of dimensions, so if something is entirely independent of whatever number of dimensions or entirely transcend the nature of such spaces who holds the property to have dimensions, should be way higher,higher than boundless lmfao
- 9,982
- 10,821
Yes that way there won't be any further attempts of such state of beings boundless atleast.
- 12,297
- 5,562
ong they probably top 10 thoAll of this to try and say Michael and Lucifer are outerversal. Like… They’re not even top 5 in DC, let alone outerversal. Maybe top 30 at best.
- 18,393
- 14,323
Ya, only, and micheal stomps lucifer.
- 12,297
- 5,562
i thought they were supposed ta be equals
- 18,393
- 14,323
debatable
- 2,151
- 2,107
As much as i love lucifer, bro caps at like Low 1-C if we are being generous
- 18,393
- 14,323
Ya I know, I mean he stomps endless family and they are 1-A (the tier will be changed). So ya
- 2,151
- 2,107
Also, with that being said, i am pretty sure the Neil Gaimans Void will also not be 1-A when the cosmology split happens?
Correct?
Correct?
- 18,393
- 14,323
- 9,982
- 10,821
Executed by ultima, congrats. Entire debate or any argument that could be formed for concepts to be outer on vs battle has been removed.
Lmao
- 18,393
- 14,323
Ultima is always W
- 9,982
- 10,821
Agree, fra
- Status
Similar threads
