1-A Clarification

[Kuuzo7]

General DC Comics Discussion Thread

This is a general DC Comics discussion thread for all things DC Comics, and none of its adaptations (please, for the love of God). If you have questions about scaling, profiles, justifications, promoting DC threads, etc, etc, this is the place. Oh, and btw, please avoid any comic politics...

vsbattles.com

Following the discussion I had in the thread above, I create this thread for anyone to prove me wrong on the two following topics related to the current tiering system for 1-A:

• Characters who create the concept of space must necessarily be 1-A (transcendant).

Explanation.
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.

As for the upcoming question on the reason why I limit "the concept of space" from 0/1-dimensional to infinite-dimensional or [1 ; +∞ [, it's not an arbitrary choice, but it's based on the fact that most fictional cosmologies with extra dimensions (more than four spacetime dimensions) all agree on the same numbers, extending from 5 dimensions up to infinity, in line with real life's definition about extra dimension and in line with the current tiering system on this point.
Extra-dimension:

In physics, extra dimensions are proposed additional space or time dimensions beyond the (3 + 1) typical of observed spacetime, such as the first attempts based on the Kaluza–Klein theory.

Extra dimensions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Low 1-C: Low Complex Multiverse level:

Characters who can affect, create and/or destroy the entirety of spaces whose size corresponds to one to two higher levels of infinity greater than a standard universal model (Low 2-C structures, in plain English.) In terms of "dimensional" scale, this can be equated to 5 and 6-dimensional real coordinate spaces (R ^ 5 to R ^ 6)

Tiering System

The following is a comprehensive overview of the hierarchical system the VS Battles Wiki utilizes to properly categorize and index fictional characters, entities, and objects based on the scale of their feats and the varying scopes that they can affect or create/destroy. Though Destructive...

vsbattles.fandom.com

High 1-B: High Hyperverse level

Characters who can universally affect, create and/or destroy structures whose size is equivalent to a countably infinite number of qualitative sizes above a universal model, usually represented in fiction by endless hierarchies of layers of existence, each succeeding one completely trivializing the previous into insignificance, or more generally a space with countably infinite dimensions.

Tiering System

The following is a comprehensive overview of the hierarchical system the VS Battles Wiki utilizes to properly categorize and index fictional characters, entities, and objects based on the scale of their feats and the varying scopes that they can affect or create/destroy. Though Destructive...

vsbattles.fandom.com

So, it would be a fallacy to equate how the terms "space" is used in a context like when a character is shown to have created the concept of space with how "space" is used in the current tiering, as, like I've adressed above, most of fictional cosmologies only include the set of natural numbers when it comes to define the dimensionality of their verse, making low 1-A the baseline for characters who create the concept of space for the reason given in the first paragraph.
Low 1-A: Low Outerverse level

Characters who can affect objects with a number of dimensions greater than the set of natural numbers,

Tiering System

The following is a comprehensive overview of the hierarchical system the VS Battles Wiki utilizes to properly categorize and index fictional characters, entities, and objects based on the scale of their feats and the varying scopes that they can affect or create/destroy. Though Destructive...

vsbattles.fandom.com

• Why it's a self-contradiction for "transcendent" characters to still be treated as "dimensional" characters.

Explanation.

Since I don't want to misinterpret anyone's stance based only on a discussion I had on this matter in the linked thread above:

ALL CHARACTERS 1-A AND ABOVE ARE DIMENSIONAL.

I would like to know in what sense the term "dimensional" is used in relation to "transcendent" characters. Are they "dimensional" in the same way as a 3, 4, 5 etc. character, in other words, with additional degrees of freedom/directions? If yes, that would only defeat the whole point of "transcendent" characters, but I will wait for more clarification on this matter.

 

[KingPin0422]

I feel like this belongs in the Questions & Answers board, especially if you're gonna invite "anyone" to prove these points wrong. Just sayin'.

 

[Kuuzo7]

I feel like this belongs in the Questions & Answers board, especially if you're gonna invite "anyone" to prove these points wrong. Just sayin'.

Not like it's the first time I called out anyone to prove me wrong on these points (which I already did in the thread linked and here). "Just sayin".
I'm just gonna wait.

 

[DontTalkDT]

No because without further feats concepts aren't assumed to apply to anything bigger than the reality they have been shown to apply to (doing so would be a NLF) and, for that matter, because the existence of a concept doesn't imply the existence or possibility of creation of every possible instance of that concept.
E.g. We have a concept of a paradox, but paradoxes can't necessarily happens and a creator of a concept paradox isn't necessarily omnipotent despite that also being a paradoxical state.
In real life we also have a concept of cardinals, but nothing large enough to have anything of a larger cardinality actually exist. (or is known to exist with any likelihood)

To that comes that fiction plenty of times contradicted that.

 

[Kuuzo7]

No because without further feats

This is the first problem that comes to my mind: then how can a character, who created the concept of space, still logically be able to demonstrate that he created this concept. It is self-refuting, because there cannot be "additional spaces" that are not part of the concept that precedes themé.

concepts aren't assumed to apply to anything bigger than the reality they have been shown to apply to (doing so would be a NLF)

I have already been through this discussion.
Even making the point it would be a "NLF" does not contradict the fact that there should been a baseline. I agree with this logic to some extent when it comes to, for exemple, weapons or tools stated to be able to block, cut, destroy "anything", less in regards to a character who created the concept of space for the reason above.

and, for that matter, because the existence of a concept doesn't imply the existence or possibility of creation of every possible instance of that concept.

That's literally what the word "concept" implies, otherwise, the character did not create any concept in the first place.

E.g. We have a concept of a paradox, but paradoxes can't necessarily happens and a creator of a concept paradox isn't necessarily omnipotent despite that also being a paradoxical state.
In real life we also have a concept of cardinals, but nothing large enough to fulfill the larger cardinals actually exists. (or is known to exist with any likelyhood)

I understand both exemples, but the 2 exemples does not refute if a character created the concept of space or not, especially the second exemple since just because 'nothing large enough to fulfill the larger cardinals actually exists' does not mean that it's not actually a concept that does exist in its framework. It has to exist in some way for us to be even able to discuss about it, even if it's not congruent with reality.

To that comes that fiction plenty of times contradicted that.

Not based on the 2 exemples.

 

[Robo432343]

Bump

 

[Darksmash]

No concepts are taken literally for the purpose of vsdebating. Otherwise many weird things will happen. Like for example any character that can manipulate concepts like "win" or "loss" will win all battles without concern for scaling or cosmology.

 

[Kuuzo7]

No concepts are taken literally for the purpose of vsdebating. Otherwise many weird things will happen. Like for example any character that can manipulate concepts like "win" or "loss" will win all battles without concern for scaling or cosmology.

->>>

I have already been through this discussion.
Even making the point it would be a "NLF" does not contradict the fact that there should been a baseline. I agree with this logic to some extent when it comes to, for exemple, weapons or tools stated to be able to block, cut, destroy "anything", less in regards to a character who created the concept of space for the reason above.

"NLF" is the worst argument someone can come up for this case or any case similar to this one since, taken litterarly or not, you'll still have to debate then what would be the most appropriate tier to make sense of it. Otherwise, this not a "NLF".

 

[KingPin0422]

If you wanna talk baselines, then "creating the concept of space" would default to 3-A unless more context is given to support tiering it higher than that. I assume by "concept" you mean "thing that defines reality," but even then, our standards dictate that we limit that to what actually exists in the reality it governs. If you can provide a strong argument for our standards simply being wrong, I'm all ears.

 

[Darksmash]

"NLF" is the worst argument someone can come up for this case or any case similar to this one since, taken litterarly or not, you'll still have to debate then what would be the most appropriate tier to make sense of it. Otherwise, this not a "NLF".

I would personally argue no baseline exists other than what the verse determines. After all we don't assign a baseline to things like "omnipotence"

 

[Kuuzo7]

If you wanna talk baselines, then "creating the concept of space" would default to 3-A unless more context is given to support tiering it higher than that. I assume by "concept" you mean "thing that defines reality," but even then, our standards dictate that we limit that to what actually exists in the reality it governs. If you can provide a strong argument for our standards simply being wrong, I'm all ears.

It’s getting interessting .
I’ll address it once I have more time.

 

[Kuuzo7]

If you wanna talk baselines, then "creating the concept of space" would default to 3-A unless more context is given to support tiering it higher than that. I assume by "concept" you mean "thing that defines reality," but even then, our standards dictate that we limit that to what actually exists in the reality it governs. If you can provide a strong argument for our standards simply being wrong, I'm all ears.

I would disagree on your method to equate « creating the concept of space » to « 3-A » by default for the reason being that even the even the space we are living, considered as 3-dimensional, is merely the observable one we are experiencing among other extra dimensions that are either not fully sized as ours to be seen (string theory) or exist in a larger cosmological structure (Brane cosmology) outside of ours. Point is, reducing « creating the concept of space » to « creating space » is wrong. « All of space » expended as result of the cosmic inflation that caused » the « Big Bang ».
And if we want to get more technical, I already demonstrated in the linked thread that this method only applies to n-dimensional characters, not to a character who created the concept of space.

As I've demonstrated in my previous subpoint, this logic only applies for n-dimensional characters such as 4 four dimensional character who creates 3 - 4 dimensional space. In this exemple, the four dimensional character would be "one layer above the spaces of the cosmology" by scaling directly to all characters below 4 < n who are part of the space he created, as, like I already explained, they are still n > 4-dimensional characters who are well far out of his reach. However, this, again, can't logically be applied to a character who creates the concept of space as there are not "spaces" that such a character would not be able to transcend. Logic 101.

If your method was true, taking the DC’s Universe as an exemple, Michal would have been well below to Mxyzptlk, a 5-dimensional character, but this is not how it is actually shown and supported by any comics. So, once again, it’s only logical that « creating the concept of space » implies what it implies.

However, if I had to play the devil’s advocate, I would say a agree on providing the evidence if it can be tiered higher.

 

[Kuuzo7]

I would personally argue no baseline exists other than what the verse determines. After all we don't assign a baseline to things like "omnipotence"

Assuming « Omnipotence » is a thing in fiction. Characters who are « Omnipotent » are only actually « the Supreme Being » of their respective « verses ».

 

[Darksmash]

Assuming « Omnipotence » is a thing in fiction. Characters who are « Omnipotent » are only actually « the Supreme Being » of their respective « verses ».

This is a baseless assumption on your part. I can just as easily say that transcending concepts is impossible in fiction as the concept of space also encompasses real life.

 

[Kuuzo7]

This is a baseless assumption on your part. I can just as easily say that transcending concepts is impossible in fiction as the concept of space also encompasses real life.

« Baseless assumption ». Provide one exemple of a fictional character who is truly Omnipotent.

Really bad argument I would not have used if I was in your case given the fact Earth-33, our real world, is one of the Earth that’s has been created along the rest of the Multiverse. Very easily to find a counter exemple to this nonsense, but I would not go that far unlike you by equatiing any characters beyond / outside the Bleed = beyond fiction.

obviously, the concept of space in a fictional context does not include our real universe, as our universe is their universe for them. In other words, it only includes the concepts within their fictional setting derived from ours, but it does not take a genius to realize this. Try to find a better another silly exemple.

 

[PrinceofPein]

This is weird, all I have to say is that no matter the verse, and concept they say they transcend they are held true within the fiction setting.
Transcending the concept of space and time in a 4D world is simple low 1-C (5D).

 

[Kuuzo7]

This is weird, all I have to say is that no matter the verse, and concept they say they transcend they are held true within the fiction setting.
Transcending the concept of space and time in a 4D world is simple low 1-C (5D).

Transcending the concept of space and time in a 4D world is simple low 1-C (5D).
Making sense as you have already established/ presumed the dimensionality of a cosmology.
This is not the same case as a character who creates the cosmology of his verse from « ground level », which is rather the situation involved in this thread.

 

[Vietthai96]

It is still a NLF assumption, as you assume that when a character create a cosmology from nothing with a concept, said character and concept is beyond all definition of dimension/space-time thus 1-A. It is a big leap in logic

 

[PrinceofPein]

Transcending the concept of space and time in a 4D world is simple low 1-C (5D).
Making sense as you have already established/ presumed the dimensionality of a cosmology.
This is not the same case as a character who creates the cosmology of his verse from « ground level », which is rather the situation involved in this thread.

No matter what cosmology he creates from the ground up, there will be showing of dimensionality or what they are capable of doing or the limit, so yes it will simply be n+1D without further context.

Or you have a practical example of a verse that the Supreme being created from.the ground up, but there was no showing of the dimensionality?
Please say the name of the verse

 

[Darksmash]

« Baseless assumption ». Provide one exemple of a fictional character who is truly Omnipotent.

Any character that is called omnipotent.
"Truly omnipotent" is an arbitrary label decided by you that is meaningless to me. The same way "transcending the concept of space" is an arbitrary label with no meaning.

Really bad argument I would not have used if I was in your case given the fact Earth-33, our real world, is one of the Earth that’s has been created along the rest of the Multiverse. Very easily to find a counter exemple to this nonsense, but I would not go that far unlike you by equatiing any characters beyond / outside the Bleed = beyond fiction.

??? This is incoherent. You have to specify what you are responding to.

obviously, the concept of space in a fictional context does not include our real universe, as our universe is their universe for them. In other words, it only includes the concepts within their fictional setting derived from ours, but it does not take a genius to realize this. Try to find a better another silly exemple.

And why can't fiction include omnipotence? Your claim that "true omnipotence is impossible in fiction" doesn't have any justification.

 

[Reiner04]

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,

Why would it be? It seems like you have a presumption that in the place where concept of space don't exist then it would mean it transcend infinite dimensions. It can simply be another kind of space where space lacks it's property to have dimensions. To be precise a different space then what we are aware of, it's just means outside not transcendent.

Is there any proof that just because that said space or place existing outside of concept of space can hold all of dimensions within itself? It's just lacking dimensions isn't a proof.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

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".

 

[PrinceofPein]

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".

Uhhm you clearly don't even understand that so don't bother using it, that's not our standard.
How tf does existing in a void gives 1-A?

Also what we mean by you don't need infinite dimensions for 1-A, is that no matter the amount of dimensions added to.a verse you would stand outside it. Meaning you are unaffected by the adding or removal of dimensions from a settings cause and only cause you stand conceptually above the concept of dimensionality of the setting, then you get 1-A, not because you can exist in a void, Self sustenance

 

[Robo432343]

Uhhm you clearly don't even understand that so don't bother using it, that's not our standard.
How tf does existing in a void gives 1-A?

Also what we mean by you don't need infinite dimensions for 1-A, is that no matter the amount of dimensions added to.a verse you would stand outside it. Meaning you are unaffected by the adding or removal of dimensions from a settings cause and only cause you stand conceptually above the concept of dimensionality of the setting, then you get 1-A, not because you can exist in a void, Self sustenance

he's just trolling

 

[Reiner04]

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".

Omfg, isn't it quite literal for what I asked?
Only thing I used to thought why vs battle hasn't accepted platonic concept of space time as 1a is literally stated to be 1a in a FAQ page. I am done here

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Uhhm you clearly don't even understand that so don't bother using it, that's not our standard.
How tf does existing in a void gives 1-A?

Also what we mean by you don't need infinite dimensions for 1-A, is that no matter the amount of dimensions added to.a verse you would stand outside it. Meaning you are unaffected by the adding or removal of dimensions from a settings cause and only cause you stand conceptually above the concept of dimensionality of the setting, then you get 1-A, not because you can exist in a void, Self sustenance

...and what's the difference between them not existing in the first place and removing them?

The dimensions not existing at first means they are effectively "removed" before they are even created.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Also, this whole thing is about being able to exist without a concept of physical dimensions being present at all.

 

[PrinceofPein]

...and what's the difference between them not existing in the first place and removing them?

The dimensions not existing at first means they are effectively "removed" before they are even created.

Removed means
From 17818181717D and you decide to keep removing till it remains 4D, then you decide to add back again till it is infinite D, this said character see no difference between any of those dimensions.

Also, this whole thing is about being able to exist without a concept of physical dimensions being present at all.

And existing in a void is still not a tier or a plane of existence.

It's like because you existed before you yourself used bigbang to create space that makes you 1-A.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Removed means
From 17818181717D and you decide to keep removing till it remains 4D, then you decide to add back again till it is infinite D, this said character see no difference between any of those dimensions.

And...that's kinda what this is about.

They don't participate in the concept of physical dimensions, so why the hell would they see a difference between them in the first place if they literally don't even participate in them?

 

[Reiner04]

From 17818181717D and you decide to keep removing till it remains 4D, then you decide to add back again till it is infinite D, this said character see no difference between any of those dimensions.

It doesn't have anything to do with number of dimensions or infinite dimensions Actually.

arbitrarily

 

[PrinceofPein]

And...that's kinda what this is about.

They don't participate in the concept of physical dimensions, so why the hell would they see a difference between them in the first place if they literally don't even participate in them?

Your claim was someone who can exist in a place without the concept of space which will be a void. And I explained to you how that is different.

Existing in a place with no concepts does not grant a tier.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Exactly. Seems like they're the one who doesn't fully understand it, or haven't read it enough.

 

[Reiner04]

Either if it's 4d or infinite d, if that said space is entirely independent of whatever number of dimensions or cosmological space that exist in the verse in the form of canvas that no amount of stacking can reach it. Then it's 1a.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Your claim was someone who can exist in a place without the concept of space which will be a void. And I explained to you how that is different.

Existing in a place with no concepts does not grant a tier.

Uh, no.

You completely misinterpreted me.

 

[Reiner04]

I am quite surprised that I didn't noticed this funny thing in FAQ page

 

[PrinceofPein]

Uh, no.

You completely misinterpreted me.

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.

I am sure I did not, but glad we can clarify that now

 

[Vietthai96]

You can reach 1-A without infinite dimension, but it is if the verse give enough contexts, and clearly establish its cosmology, we don't assume transcend some random concept of space mean suddendly transcend all definition of dimension, infinite layers of it

 

[Furudo_Erika]

"Your claim was someone who can exist in a place without the concept of space which will be a void. And I explained to you how that is different"

No my claim was they are 1-A BECAUSE they don't PARTICIPATE in the concept of space, but because they can simply exist in a place without a concept of space.

Big difference between not participating in space and existing in a place without a concept of space

 

[PrinceofPein]

"Your claim was someone who can exist in a place without the concept of space which will be a void. And I explained to you how that is different"

No my claim was they are 1-A BECAUSE they don't PARTICIPATE in the concept of space, but because they can simply exist in a place without a concept of space.

Big difference between not participating in space and existing in a place without a concept of space

Read it wrong, anyway not participating in the concepts of space is no longer enough for 1-A, as now have 1-A space and dimensions.
So you need to not participate and be conceptually above, something like apophatic theory in a verse that has one or two higher dimensions with R>F, would qualify actually.
A space with no coordinates with some other proves obviously. Would also qualify for 1-A.

 

[Vietthai96]

No my claim was they are 1-A BECAUSE they don't PARTICIPATE in the concept of space, but because they can simply exist in a place without a concept of space.

Big difference between not participating in space and existing in a place without a concept of space

Both didn't give you 1-A rating either, because it is a big leap in logic to assume that no concept of space mean beyond all definition, infinite layers of space/dimension