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.
Waiting for Ultima to counterargue currentlyWhich staff members have helped out with this thread previously, and what do we currently need to do here?
And also, to tackle with what the author is intended to scale the characters and the omniverse at.Waiting for Ultima to counterargue currently
I see. A good thing or a bad thing tho?And also, to tackle with what the author is intended to scale the characters and the omniverse at.
I have my own approach, which will be independent against this CRT.
Not good or bad, just my own independent research that would not affect the progress of this CRT for the time being.I see. A good thing or a bad thing tho?
I seeNot good or bad, just my own independent research that would not affect the progress of this CRT for the time being.
I mean, it would kinda imply it. If a grain of sand contains a world and that's explicitly stated, wouldn't it be an even bigger assumption that that's the only grain that does, and not others as well?a grain of sand contains a world, does not mean that every grain of sand from the world contained inside the grain of sand, also has a world inside them.
Unless this is a rule on the wiki I feel this isn't really true. Now, while I agree that the context of the story is more important than the irl concept, it is still important to consider what the irl concept actually refers to. Ultima made some interesting points about it being more metaphorical rather than some literal thing.Well like I stated before if Ultima brings an argument, it has to be backed up by what's stated in the novel.
We weren't allowed to use real-life Buddhism as the main evidence for upgrades so there is no reason one can use real-life Buddhism for debunks either.
This isn't exactly true. A verse can be upgraded based on real-life concepts if the verse itself actually follows those rules accurately and fits the requirements for the upgrade. But for a downgrade, all you really need to suggest is that the real-life concept that the fiction uses isn't literal and wouldn't really get a tier, and discussion for a downgrade would be okay.Let's be real here, We weren't even allowed irl concepts to upgrade verses, why do we use them to downgrade verses then? No matter how closely linked they are to the verse's setting, we can't use em. Otherwise I could make the current Jiang Zi Ya profile have conceptual manipulation due to the five elements being closely linked to the irl five elements concept and give the previously present dies irae profiles transduality type 3 because of the mention of taikyoku (Taiji).
Threads of interest:Unless this is a rule on the wiki I feel this isn't really true. Now, while I agree that the context of the story is more important than the irl concept, it is still important to consider what the irl concept actually refers to. Ultima made some interesting points about it being more metaphorical rather than some literal thing.
Now, does this apply to the novel? Maybe not. I think the scans presented give some validity to the idea of a multiverse with worlds beyond measure and stuff like that, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss his argument simply because he uses the actual ideas that the novel draws from.
I think you read this incorrectlyI mean, it would kinda imply it. If a grain of sand contains a world and that's explicitly stated, wouldn't it be an even bigger assumption that that's the only grain that does, and not others as well?
That requires more proof than the former. It's like trying to say the speed of light isn't the same when reflected.I think you read this incorrectly
Imagine me and you standing together in a desert or beach. And I said
"All grains of sands in the world contains a universe of its own".
That does not mean that inside those universes from the grain of sands, their own sands too contain universes and continues in an infinite recursion. That is a bigger assumption, and you know my motto
Extraordinary tier requires Extraordinary proof
I don't know how you came to that, but thats not what I meanThat requires more proof than the former. It's like trying to say the speed of light isn't the same when reflected.
I mean...my analogy is quite clear. So what were you trying to say then?I don't know how you came to that, but thats not what I mean
That isn't an apt comparison. Pain makes a pretty interesting argument. Yes, it states that a single grain of sand could contain multiple worlds or something like that, but why would this mean that all grains of sand within these worlds would follow the same principle? If it does, could you send the necessary evidence for this?That requires more proof than the former. It's like trying to say the speed of light isn't the same when reflected.
What he's trying to say is that it's a reach to assume that there's an infinite recursion just because a statement was made about a grain of sand containing worlds was made. I think he makes a good point. Now, if you have more evidence to support this infinite recursion idea, then I think that would put the argument at rest, but up until that point, his argument stands.I mean...my analogy is quite clear. So what were you trying to say then?
Because since this is the subsection of the dharma that causes it and also because the dharma would fill every single gap. There is no gap that it does not fill.That isn't an apt comparison. Pain makes a pretty interesting argument. Yes, it states that a single grain of sand could contain multiple worlds or something like that, but why would this mean that all grains of sand within these worlds would follow the same principle? If it does, could you send the necessary evidence for this?
I can't see the image. Is there another way you should send it?Because since this is the subsection of the dharma that causes it and also because the dharma would fill every single gap. There is no gap that it does not fill.
It's on the jttw cosmology page. Dharma sectionI can't see the image. Is there another way you should send it?
Honestly, we already went over this a while ago, and other stuff aside no one has countered a clear correlation.What he's trying to say is that it's a reach to assume that there's an infinite recursion just because a statement was made about a grain of sand containing worlds was made. I think he makes a good point. Now, if you have more evidence to support this infinite recursion idea, then I think that would put the argument at rest, but up until that point, his argument stands.
Just for me being an idiot, could you send the relevant scans for these three points again?
- Buddha's have Buddha-Realms.
- Buddha-Realms have Infinite Universes in them.
- Buddha's are confirmed to exist in every Universe.
Which is already provided aboveYes, the more extreme the tiers, the more elaborate and explicit the evidence needs to be to apply them.
Honestly, this CRT has been getting pushed back much more than necessary. The majority have agreed with our stance including staff members and the only two proposing arguments are Ultima & Pain.Yes, the more extreme the tiers, the more elaborate and explicit the evidence needs to be to apply them.
That's a bit wrong what I am saying isPain's argument is straight up saying "All worlds doesn't mean all worlds" and I honestly can't believe anyone would agree with such a claim that blatantly goes against the Author's intent.
Do you see how you need to add an entire sentence that the Author never hinted at to justify your reasoning, instead of just taking "All" as it's proper definition?"All worlds" can simply mean all worlds within the current universe, not that all worlds even the worlds between the worlds that are inside the worlds that are also inside the worlds.
Again if I am in a room full of cats and I said "all the cats are sick"Do you see how you need to add an entire sentence that the Author never hinted at to justify your reasoning, instead of just taking "All" as it's proper definition?