• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robo said:
yeah Kuuzo, we were discussing about this in the General DC thread on why you think Michael is 1-A for creating the concept of space
Click to expand...
So I was not wrong at all, he was tending it to upgrade a character from DC comic. Haha.
 
Dread said:
Yayaya.
Click to expand...
->
Dread said:
all this just to upgrade DB Comic to 1-A. Prove me wrong
Click to expand...
-->
Kuuzo7 said:
Just because this thread was created following a dicussion related to "DB Comic" does not mean the point of it is to "all this just to upgrade DB Comic to 1-A". That's a fallacy.
It seems that there are characters in the same case as Michael, so getting a clarification on this point will only settle everything.
Click to expand...
Get your facts straight.
 
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
 
NHTkenshin2 said:
Yeah but the current tiering system isnt based on incomprehensibility, transcendence and all that stuff
Click to expand...
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).
 
NHTkenshin2 said:
Why specifically the set of all naturals?
why just not all Numbers that can be used to define spatial complexity?
Click to expand...
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.
 
NHTkenshin2 said:
why just not all Numbers that can be used to define spatial complexity?
Click to expand...
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:
Kuuzo7 said:
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.
Click to expand...
infinitive_of_go2.png


Source: The Infinitive of Go
 
I am getting bored of the useless back and forth so I will just get to the point
Kuuzo7 said:
Regardless the number of dimensions, there won't be any obstacle for a character who created the "concept of space", as he is obviously above any "configuration" of space, that is to say, again, from 1-dimensional to infinite-dimensional.
Click to expand...
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"?
 
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
 
Kuuzo7 said:
A character who creates the "concept of space" must necessarily be 1-A (transcendant) and, at least, low 1-A for the simple reason being such a character will always be above any n-dimensional character, i.e from 0/1-dimensional to infinite-dimensional. Regardless the number of dimensions, there won't be any obstacle for a character who created the "concept of space", as he is obviously above any "configuration" of space, that is to say, again, from 1-dimensional to infinite-dimensional.
Click to expand...
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:
NHTkenshin2 said:
Why specifically 1-A though?
Click to expand...
Dread said:
It is because you are “transcendental” from the concept of dimensions, if you understand what I mean.
Click to expand...
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 🗿 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.

Q: How can a character be 1-A and above without an infinite-dimensional/infinitely-layered cosmology, then?​

A: A good way to accomplish this would be to show that whatever state of being in which they exist is completely independent of the number of layers/dimensions present on the setting. For example, if they are unaffected by dimensions being arbitrarily added or removed from physical space by virtue of transcending it entirely, or if they exist as a "background" or canvas of sorts in which any amount of them can be inserted. This argument generalizes to tiers higher than 1-A as well.​

Click to expand...

​

 
Last edited:
Reiner said:
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 🗿 but as per FAQ page it's low 1a, which doesn't makes sense.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes that way there won't be any further attempts of such state of beings boundless atleast.
 
All 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.

Er9KdmGXcAQ3AXG
 
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?
 
Furudo_Erika said:
I mean, in the LITERAL FAQ page, it states that 1-A can be reached by this without infinite dimensions:

"A good way to accomplish this would be to show that whatever state of being in which they exist is completely independent of the number of layers/dimensions present on the setting. For example, if they are unaffected by dimensions being arbitrarily added or removed from physical space by virtue of transcending it entirely, or if they exist as a "background" or canvas of sorts in which any amount of them can be inserted. This argument generalizes to tiers higher than 1-A as well."

Basically: If they exist independently from any number of dimensions present, it would be 1-A. If the literal concept of physical space is erased, but they can still "physically" exist without the concept of physical space, it is 1-A. Because they don't rely on any dimensions to exist, as they exist above the concept of them.

Now this isn't ME saying this, it is the own wiki's qualifications. So if this doesn't qualify...then sorry to say: "******* change it".
Click to expand...
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 🗿
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

OMNIVERSAL-KING
Infinity Vs higher Dimensional axis and clarification about low 1-C
Replies
2
Views
407
Accelerated_Evolution
Accelerated_Evolution
Tanin_iver
The Relationship between Beyond-Dimensional Existence and Dimensional Manipulation
Replies
11
Views
801
Tanin_iver
Tanin_iver
Questions about dimensional tiering
Replies
3
Views
1K
ProfectusInfinity
ProfectusInfinity
Arc7Kuroi
  • Locked
Tiering System Question
Replies
17
Views
1K
Arc7Kuroi
Arc7Kuroi
BrainiacWorld
  • Locked
Scaling Question
Replies
10
Views
656
Agnaa
Agnaa
Back
Top