- 12,448
- 5,643
No ideaWhy specifically 1-A though?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No ideaWhy specifically 1-A though?
It is because you are “transcendental” from the concept of dimensions, if you understand what I mean.No idea
So I was not wrong at all, he was tending it to upgrade a character from DC comic. Haha.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
Never said otherwise slow minded.So I was not wrong at all, he was tending it to upgrade a character from DC comic. Haha.
Yayaya.Never said otherwise slow minded.
Michael = / = "DB Comic".
1-A is Aleph-2D though, what does being transcendent over the concept of dimensions have to do with Aleph-2D?It is because you are “transcendental” from the concept of dimensions, if you understand what I mean.
Ask them, not me. I am anyways against it lol.1-A is Aleph-2D though, what does being transcendent over the concept of dimensions have to do with Aleph-2D?
1-A transcendant = / = 1-A "Outversal".1-A is Aleph-2D though, what does being transcendent over the concept of dimensions have to do with Aleph-2D?
->Yayaya.
-->all this just to upgrade DB Comic to 1-A. Prove me wrong
Get your facts straight.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.
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).Yeah but the current tiering system isnt based on incomprehensibility, transcendence and all that stuff
AgreedI 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
That's where I was getting at.Why specifically the set of all naturals?
why just not all Numbers that can be used to define spatial complexity?
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.why just not all Numbers that can be used to define spatial complexity?
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.
What's your reason for limiting "concept of space" to any natural number dimensions?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.
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.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.
I agreeThe FAQ page should re-edited. I assume
Why specifically 1-A though?
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,It is because you are “transcendental” from the concept of dimensions, if you understand what I mean.
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.
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 lmfaobut as per FAQ page it's low 1a, which doesn't makes sense.
Yes that way there won't be any further attempts of such state of beings boundless atleast.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.
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.
Ya, only, and micheal stomps lucifer.ong they probably top 10 tho
i thought they were supposed ta be equalsYa, only, and micheal stomps lucifer.
debatablei thought they were supposed ta be equals
Ya I know, I mean he stomps endless family and they are 1-A (the tier will be changed). So yaAs much as i love lucifer, bro caps at like Low 1-C if we are being generous
YesAlso, with that being said, i am pretty sure the Neil Gaimans Void will also not be 1-A when the cosmology split happens?
Correct?
Executed by ultima, congrats. Entire debate or any argument that could be formed for concepts to be outer on vs battle has been removed.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".
Agree, fraUltima is always W