1-A Void upgrade for Shadow Fight

[Richard5128pm]

I don't really find this angle particularly persuasive, like I said, if there's things in the game itself that describes the Void as outside intellection or beyond comprehension then I'd be happy to back the effort, I just don't see it at the moment.

I recently came across an event description for the game, which describes the portal to be beyond mortal comprehension, this is so far the closest thing I've got to what you're asking for, at the moment.

The portal -
It’s basically just a hole is reality, through which the void is peeking through. As Tenebris explained, it’s just complete emptiness beyond the portal (hole in reality). It is also where Tenebris vs Shadow takes place.

 

[Secimatar]

Feel free to ask him on here yourself. I asked him on Discord.

I don't really find this angle particularly persuasive, like I said, if there's things in the game itself that describes the Void as outside intellection or beyond comprehension then I'd be happy to back the effort, I just don't see it at the moment.

This has nothing to do with the incomprehensible scan. It has to with the other thing where u said that if a void of nothingness encompasses the physical reality, it still doesn't mean they are superior.
U also said it was Agnaa who spread this misinformation but the truth is, Agnaa was against it
Quoting Agnaa:

Why would you say that conceptual realms and voids of nothingness are verifiably ontologically greater in nature? I can kinda see where you'd get the former, since "conceptual realms" are often the underlying basis for physical reality and stand above it in that way, but that isn't always the case. And I have absolutely no clue why you'd view voids of nothingness as being ontologically greater; I'd think they'd more often be ontologically equal, or lesser, due to lacking that which the physical world has. A character that gets their existence erased isn't ascended, they're reduced. Typically speaking.

And it was Ultima who actually told him why void of nothingness can be ontologivally superior.
Quoting Ultima:

Not inherently ontologically greater, no. The point is moreso that these things are non-composite, so the 'superiority' they'd hold over normal reality (If they are superior, to begin with) would be an ontological one by nature. Unless the verse featuring them means superiority in other respects than the ones relevant to us.

Now I don't know what ultima told u offsite, but it could be that u misunderstood him or maybe he misunderstood you cuz literally everything he has said regarding this topic on this site literally goes against your stand here and rather corresponds with the thread.

 

[Voidnether]

The best option is definitely waiting for Ultima to reply to this thread, 1-A justification is based on interpretations to those feat. Honestly, other than using Ultima's example about 1-A, what else is there to be? And not to mention, R>F on this verse has been denied blatantly for the Low 1-C upgrades.

 

[Richard5128pm]

The best option is definitely waiting for Ultima to reply to this thread, 1-A justification is based on interpretations to those feat. Honestly, other than using Ultima's example about 1-A, what else is there to be?

Agreed. But at this rate, he won't be giving an input till jan 2025, since there're a lot more crt's on the queue.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

Why would he say that...?

?
Are you sure you understand what I'm referring to? I'm referring to this:

I double checked my my thoughts with Ultima and he has confirmed to me that the idea of a Void being larger than a Multiverse or Space-time isn't automatic grounds for 1-A, my Bathtub Void idea reminds sound.

 

[Secimatar]

The best option is definitely waiting for Ultima to reply to this thread, 1-A justification is based on interpretations to those feat. Honestly, other than using Ultima's example about 1-A, what else is there to be? And not to mention, R>F on this verse has been denied blatantly for the Low 1-C upgrades.

That was cuz after the revision it no longer qualified for vsbw standards of r>f so it was denied.
Ultimas example on BDE Type 2 literally tells us what can qualify as BDE2 and 1-A and the void literally corresponds with that example itself. We have lots of proof to why the void is nothingness and is detached and is physical in composition to the general reality as it created and encompasses entirety of the general reality.
yeah, the best thing is to wait for ultimas response but the problem is that he hasn't responded to many threads that are still waiting for his response that were made prior to this one.

 

[Udlmaster]

This has nothing to do with the incomprehensible scan. It has to with the other thing where u said that if a void of nothingness encompasses the physical reality, it still doesn't mean they are superior.

Are you sure you understand what I'm referring to? I'm referring to this:

Yes. I know what you're referring to. It's not going to move the conversation along. We're just going to be arguing over someone's opinion and that's not conducive so I'm moving on.

I'd already say what I would find convincing for 1-A. I'm moving onto something that will move the argument along.

 

[Catzlaflame]

No not at all, Hard disagree.

The biggest prerequisite for 1-A via BDE is emphasized on the page:

Furthermore, keep in mind that Type 2 Beyond-Dimensional Existence (In particular the latter variant) is not simply a combination of a non-dimensional state of existence and greater raw power than all dimensional structures in a cosmology – Though that is a necessary condition to qualify for it, it is not a sufficient one. Instead, the non-dimensional state of existence must be the direct cause of the character/realm's superiority over dimensions. A simple example being voids of nothingness that lack space, time and physicality entirely, but are nonetheless "vaster" than physical reality in some way, with common imagery being the universe as a small object encompassed in such a backdrop.

Right now you have proved to me that (1) the void is nonexistent, and (2) since we know that size can be an application of AP, you have proved that the void has greater “raw power” (I do have a minor problem w this, but that’ll be for another time)

What you have not proven is that the void being nonexistent of space-time is the fundamental reason why it is greater in power (or in this case — why it is paradoxically vaster). It can’t just be vaster and nonexistent. It has to be “vaster” because it is nonexistent.

One can say “oh but catz what about this explicit statement:”

A simple example being voids of nothingness that lack space, time and physicality entirely, but are nonetheless "vaster" than physical reality in some way, with common imagery being the universe as a small object encompassed in such a backdrop

I think it’s very clear that the intention with this is to tie into the description above (the sentences are right next to each other) . It just didnt specify it again here, but this doesn’t magically make the major prerequisite disappear cus they are not mutually exclusive.

I do have one other issue, but I have to get started with my day so may write that up later

 

[Antvasima]

@Elizhaa

Are you willing to take a look at and evaluate this thread please?

 

[Richard5128pm]

I think it’s very clear that the intention with this is to tie into the description above (the sentences are right next to each other) . It just didnt specify it again here, but this doesn’t magically make the major prerequisite disappear cus they are not mutually exclusive.

I feel like ultima makes it clear in this comment.

The point is moreso that these things are non-composite, so the 'superiority' they'd hold over normal reality (If they are superior, to begin with) would be an ontological one by nature. Unless the verse featuring them means superiority in other respects than the ones relevant to us.

It can’t just be vaster and nonexistent. It has to be “vaster” because it is nonexistent.

I think that applies for other conceptual domains (domain of death, etc,.), they have to prove their non-dimensionality and use it's superiority over physical realm to prove 1-A. Meanwhile a Void of nothingness already does that by default, which is why it is used as an example.

 

[Robo432343]

Voids like this do not qualify for 1-A

 

[Secimatar]

Voids like this do not qualify for 1-A

I don't see how this debunks anything at all lol, we are literally using this to show how it is 1-A

 

[Richard5128pm]

Voids like this do not qualify for 1-A

Brotha, this is what I was referring to in my previous message.

I feel like ultima makes it clear in this comment.
I think that applies for other conceptual domains (domain of death, etc,.), they have to prove their non-dimensionality and use it's superiority over physical realm to prove 1-A. Meanwhile a Void of nothingness already does that by default, which is why it is used as an example.

 

[Richard5128pm]

@Elizhaa

Are you willing to take a look at and evaluate this thread please?

Can you ping Ultima or Agnaa?

 

[Secimatar]

What you have not proven is that the void being nonexistent of space-time is the fundamental reason why it is greater in power (or in this case — why it is paradoxically vaster). It can’t just be vaster and nonexistent. It has to be “vaster” because it is nonexistent.

Ngl what ur interpretation is different from every other thing I have seen.
Greater "raw power" is referring to have a greater A.P or D.C, to be able to destroy the entire thing.
From one of ultimas replies it can be made clear that by that statement, it means that a chracter/realm just lacking spatio-temporal features and just having greater raw power doesn't mean they are qualitively superior in nature.

It hasn't changed at all, no. Type 2 BDE is and has always been about characters who lack spatiotemporal features being superior to them in ontology. Not just characters who lack spacetime and also have the raw power to blow up spacetime.

It has also been properly explained by ultima why void of nothingness that are containers are ontologically superior to dimensions.
If they encompass reality, they are obviously vaster and superior in some aspect, but that doesn't mean any realm that does that has ontological supperioirty and is superior dimesnions. Non-composite realms on the other hand, if they have a superiority over reality, it would be an ontological one by nature.
This is why a void of nothingness obeys everything said on the BDE page and is often used as an example by ultima.

A character with Type 2 BDE, however, has this non-dimensional nature indeed be something comparable to dimensional structures, more specifically by being "larger" than them. So it doesn't simply lack size but indeed is above size. So, for instance, if you have a void of nonexistence described as having no dimensions, or as "beyond spatial dimensions," and then it's portrayed as something far more vast than dimensional structures (By encompassing and surrounding them as a container, for example), that's Type 2.

Not inherently ontologically greater, no. The point is moreso that these things are non-composite, so the 'superiority' they'd hold over normal reality (If they are superior, to begin with) would be an ontological one by nature. Unless the verse featuring them means superiority in other respects than the ones relevant to us.

 

[Richard5128pm]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

@Ultima_Reality @Agnaa @Qawsedf234 @Planck69 @Everything12

What do you think about this?

 

[Secimatar]

bruh speaking fax

The problem is that it is not said to be aspatial and atemporal; it is something you just assumed.

We have added more evidence on the thread, it would be kind of you to re evaluate your position.

 

[ByArrow]

Black Adam, Doctor Fate and Sabbac will also be High 6-A, right?

Wrong thread

 

[Secimatar]

Black Adam, Doctor Fate and Sabbac will also be High 6-A, right?

I think u may have replied to the wrong thread

 

[Baabasaplar95]

I was looking at several CRTs at the same time, sorry

 

[Secimatar]

Bump