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

 

[Wikisource]

Ig this will take a long time until Ultima say something

 

[Bernkastelll]

I agree, yeah

 

[Richard5128pm]

I agree, yeah

Thanks for the input

 

[Hixkaryana]

I'm neutral inclined to disagreeing.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Yeah, just read this but half of what was said isn't supported by the quotes and scans. Being more “vast” than the universes(which I didn't see a direct reference for) is implying some sort of larger plane that's not exactly ontologically superior to the baseline existence.

Dissolving into the nothingness is very interesting, but given how much of the description for the Void seems to be very comparable to the universes in that a size difference isn't any beyond conceptuality nor does it infer R>F. It seems like a plane outside of the universes where materials dissolve into their corrosive nature, which is a description for any void, and in the FAQ lacking material or being a void of nothingness does not imply it being 1-A.

 

[Secimatar]

Being more “vast” than the universes(which I didn't see a direct reference for)

The void contains all the universes, there are atleast 1000+ unis in every plane (possibly infinite) and there are infinite number of planes in the physical reality.

is implying some sort of larger plane that's not exactly ontologically superior to the baseline existence.

If a void of nothingness is superior to the physical reality, its superiority an ontological one by nature

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.

We also know from ultimas statements and other pages on this wiki that if a void contains physical reality and is vaster than it then it is ontologically superior to it and not just a higher plane.

for example, a verse emphatically stating a void is aspatial, atemporal, etc, but also depicting it through spatial imagery (e.g. Depicting the universe as a tiny object amidst a massive backdrop) wouldn't really be a contradiction, by my lights, so much as a consequence of non-dimensional stuff being by nature impossible to visually depict.

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.

but given how much of the description for the Void seems to be very comparable to the universes in that a size

The void is not comparable to the universe in size, the void is literally infinite and contains infinite universes.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

The void contains all the universes, there are atleast 1000+ unis in every plane (possibly infinite) and there are infinite number of planes in the physical reality.

Where is this “in every plane” scan or quote at? Plus, having infinite planes mean little to nothing since that's doesn't imply a qualitative hierarchy. All of what you said could be just Low 1-C.

If a void of nothingness is superior to the physical reality, its superiority an ontological one by nature

Being superior doesn't mean it is an ontological one. Benign a void of nothingness by “nature” doesn't guarantee a 1-A rating.

We also know from ultimas statements and other pages on this wiki that if a void contains physical reality and is vaster than it then it is ontologically superior to it and not just a higher plane.

Yeah, the condition in which Ultima explains it doesn't even match what's being said here. So I wouldn't really change my stance on anything I already said.

The void is not comparable to the universe in size, the void is literally infinite and contains infinite universes.

The comparison is drawn from the fact, that there's no information of it being above in size(down to its core concept) where we can concur a medium that the Void is ontologically superior where size isn't a spatial view of comparsion between the universes and the Void, which is a quantitative measure.

 

[Richard5128pm]

Yeah, just read this but half of what was said isn't supported by the quotes and scans.

Can you tell me which parts are not supported by the scans and quotes, I'll clarify them.

Being more “vast” than the universes(which I didn't see a direct reference for) is implying some sort of larger plane that's not exactly ontologically superior to the baseline existence.

The thing is, BDE page tells us if a void of nothingness or any Conceptual domain is shown superior to physical reality (like dwarfing them, as Ultima explained in the quote) should be given 1-A rating, the lore treats the void as something totally beyond the comprehension of the lower reality, the multiverse. We get ishtar saying "our little world is but a small part of the vast world of the void"
I've also given a explanation as to why the void dwarfs the entire multiverse

The void children (a.k.a the ancients) can leave their universes and step into the void / emptiness beyond it, only they can survive it's existence erasure, if any regular character were to enter it, they would instantly get erased. The void children can go anywhere in the multiverse as worlds and times are open to them, they can go to the past and future + anywhere in the 2-A multiverse. But even these characters find it impossible to travel from one side to the other in the void without the infinity beacon, just because of how vast the void is. The 2-A multiverse itself would be a small object encompassed in such a backdrop.

The letter reads "the void is very large, and getting from one part of it to another is impossible", what makes this letter so Important is that it was written by a character who can go anywhere in the multiverse + to any time period, nowhere in the multiverse is unreachable for them. But it all pales in comparison to the void as she cannot travel through it, just because of how big it is.

And, from what ultima has repeated in all of his explanations, he needs an atemporal + aspatial entity who is also shown to be bigger / vaster than dimensioned things to be given Beyond dimensional existence (type 2). I've replaced the quote with a different one in the OP, check it out.

The FAQ page quote mentions "their 'otherness' is identical to their transcendence", in this case, the void is something completely different compared to the multiverse, it is a void of nothingness which lacks anything physical, while also being treated as something completely beyond the physical reality.

They are fundamentally different from the nature of the lower reality, and this different nature is precisely the source of their superiority over it. Since their "otherness" is identical to their transcendence, no expansion or extension of the lower reality and anything in it can possibly attain to them, as long as it maintains its particular nature. Put it simply: They are as powerful as they are alien.

This quote actually perfectly describes the void.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Yeah…..no. You can put my vote for disagree.

 

[Richard5128pm]

Alright then

 

[Secimatar]

Being superior doesn't mean it is an ontological one. Benign a void of nothingness by “nature” doesn't guarantee a 1-A rating.

I already showed ultima saying that if a void of nothingness is superior it is ontologically superior but I guess I can show it again.

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.

Yeah, the condition in which Ultima explains it doesn't even match what's being said here. So I wouldn't really change my stance on anything I already said.

Which condition r u even talking about? I literally showed his conditions but I guess I can show them again.

for example, a verse emphatically stating a void is aspatial, atemporal, etc, but also depicting it through spatial imagery (e.g. Depicting the universe as a tiny object amidst a massive backdrop) wouldn't really be a contradiction, by my lights, so much as a consequence of non-dimensional stuff being by nature impossible to visually depict.

And it matches perfectly what ultima said here.

The comparison is drawn from the fact, that there's no information of it being above in size(down to its core concept) where we can concur a medium that the Void is ontologically superior where size isn't a spatial view of comparsion between the universes and the Void, which is a quantitative measure.

This argument is also just debunked by the ultimas quote that I pinned above which explains why void of nothingness being greater in size to physical reality is not a contradiction since non-dimesnional stuff is impossible to depict.

All of what you said could be just Low 1-C.

Low 1-C isn't even an option here. Nothingness lacks dimensionality, and if its greater than any dimensional structure it can't be compared to dimesnions at all. That is what BDE Type 2 is and that is also why void of nothingness is considered 1-A on BDE page.
So overall u didn't show any proof, wiki statements or ultima statements of what disqualifies the void from being a 1-A of void of nothingness. Until then I consider ur arguments as empty and weightless.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I already showed ultima saying that if a void of nothingness is superior it is ontologically superior but I guess I can show it again.

Superior in terms of what? Name dropping random things like “superiority” does nothing and I'm pretty sure Ultima can adhere to that. You can be dimensionally superior without having any qualitative trait or be in a higher dimension that is not part of reality yet it wouldn't suffice for quantitative superiority. The point being there's nothing that was shown in the OP to dissect anything other than it lacking what the conventional reality has.

Which condition r u even talking about? I literally showed his conditions but I guess I can show them again.

And it matches perfectly what ultima said here.

Yeah, none of that description is met. Maybe, your depiction of it being atemporal but that's really arguable. If you have a scan to say it lacks space and time(which is Low 1-A and that's referring to the entire concept of dimension) then sure you can make a feasible argument, but you would also have to provide the example that's the “size” correlation between the two is existent to non-existent. Any lesser degree of example shows that there's an innate “size” difference that disqualifies it from being 1-A. If there's no direct/indirect specific example which I haven't seen so far. Then I can refute this argument as a lack of evidence.

This argument is also just debunked by the ultimas quote that I pinned above which explains why void of nothingness being greater in size to physical reality is not a contradiction since non-dimesnional stuff is impossible to depict.

My arguments stems from the fact that:

1. Prove that it is non-dimensional and that its has superior traits than the covential reality to show that it has qualities for 1-A.

2. Also, where’s the evidence it being impossible to reach, at the very least, other than so far it being a realm from where the worlds come from.

Low 1-C isn't even an option here. Nothingness lacks dimensionality, and if its greater than any dimensional structure it can't be compared to dimesnions at all. That is what BDE Type 2 is and that is also why void of nothingness is considered 1-A on BDE page.

Low 1-C comes from a debased argument that its larger than infinite universes without any sort of superiority.

While I don't really see a case for all Voids being universally being dimensionless, at the very best, lacking physical material. It could still occupy volume and be temporal.

So overall u didn't show any proof, wiki statements or ultima statements of what disqualifies the void from being a 1-A of void of nothingness. Until then I consider ur arguments as empty and weightless.

You're entire argument prefaces around the Void being a concept that entirely lacks dimensions and being superior without any evidence. Which is at best, Hitchen’s Razor.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Anyways, count my vote for disagree. I'll try to get some mods to shine some light on this thread. Perhaps, if you're lucky enough that they share the same view.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

Count me as disagreeing for now, but open to being proven wrong. You're going to need a bit more description in some of the details to get 1-A accepted, as it's too vague in certain places.

 

[Dark_The_Heroes]

Bruch, I thought there would be a normal discussion with an empty room

 

[Antvasima]

It seems like this revision has been rejected by some knowledgeable members.

 

[Dark_The_Heroes]

How many more days will it take for me to post without the approval of the administration?

 

[Infinitinet]

The pictures aren't showing for me.