A Certain Llama Wants In On The Low 1-C club; Pokemon Low 1-C Upgrade for True Form Arceus

[JooCipher]

after reading everything, i agree with Low 1-C Lhama god

 

[StrymULTRA]

It needs to be specific and concise and say that the places Arceus embodies and created are spatial dimensions that transcend the space-time of the 4D continuum

Redundant.

Thought it needs also the part where Arceus perceives the verse.

 

[QuasiYuri]

Redundant.

Thought it needs also the part where Arceus perceives the verse.

Perceiving isn't a Low 1-C feat so meh.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

Redundant.

Thought it needs also the part where Arceus perceives the verse.

Being concise isn't redundant

 

[StrymULTRA]

Being concise isn't redundant

How the hell are plates even relevant here lol.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

How the hell are plates even relevant here lol.

I didn't mention the plates at all

 

[StrymULTRA]

I read plates not places...

Tho I thought that its realm being beyond space and time and Arceus itself having the 4D continuum and axis as a mere piece of itself is enough?

 

[Sniper670]

So.... What now.
Above baseline 2A or Low1C?

 

[StrymULTRA]

So.... What now.
Above baseline 2A or Low1C?

Arceus is already above such in the profile. So all we can do here is pushing for Low 1-C.

I can try calling @Ultima_Reality tbh.

 

[Sniper670]

From what I've seen here, Arceus would be vastly above baseline 2A, considering the the cosmology, it's avatars, the CT and the plates are tiny portions of him

It's just that certain things have to be laid down, infinitely above 2A hasn't been proven yet or a 5D statement. His realm hints at something beyond 4D, since in PLA it was inaccessible to even Gira who lives outside the verse. At least we know his realm has been inaccessible for reasons beyond us...........

Best we can push is "At least 2A" until GF properly confirms where Arceus truly stands.

Me personally I don't trust things GF hasn't confirmed. They're decades behind in everything and I won't be surprised PLA 2 or the upcoming PlA anime they'll push Arceus realm as 4D as if that's evolutionary.

 

[Delta333]

Ultima was already aware of this thread in yesterday actually, but the reason that he didn't come here is unknown (tho it seems like he agreed with it)

 

[StrymULTRA]

Best we can push is "At least 2A" until GF properly confirms where Arceus truly stands.

He's already "At least 2-B, likely 2-A"

 

[Sniper670]

that's his Avatar.

This thread was purposely aimed at his True form

We can use "at least 2A" for his true form

 

[Arceus0x]

that's his Avatar.

This thread was purposely aimed at his True form

We can use "at least 2A" for his true form

tbh i don't mind At least 2-A, likely Low 1-C for the form

 

[StrymULTRA]

Guys, you're forgetting the 2-B part...

Only thing possible here is possibly.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Ultima was already aware of this thread in yesterday actually, but the reason that he didn't come here is unknown (tho it seems like he agreed with it)

Where btw

 

[Delta333]

Where btw

Discord, my friend has sent a screenshot of his conversation with Ultima and Ultima's reason for Low 1-C Arceus is literally the same as what I said above

 

[XXKINGXX69]

Tell Ultima to come here then

 

[NIK_FARIS]

Does Ultima agree on possibly or solid low 1-c?

 

[Delta333]

solid

 

[Arthex]

Well since ultima agrees, there is probably a solid reason. so if he comes here and explains it, someone can probably make a blog to explain low 1c arcues and link it to his profile to avoid billions of threads questioning arcues's rating. ( that chad asteroid )

 

[Delta333]

So you mean if he never comes here then this thread will never finish lmao

 

[Arthex]

So you mean if he never comes here then this thread will never finish lmao

Well, that will be the case unless you know someone who is equally as knowledge as him about tier 1.

 

[Delta333]

Well, that will be the case unless you know someone who is equally as knowledge as him about tier 1.

What if I said I already told everyone here the reason for tier 1 Arceus? Which is literally the same as what he said to my friend? Ah, now I'm no staff so no one gives a **** about what I said

I think you just rely too much on him, he has his own life so sometimes we need to do the change without his presence or we should delete tier 1 if one day people like Ultima leave the wiki

 

[Pikaman]

Cool it, and if this upgrade goes against the tiering system then knowledagble staff will say so. We don't need the same point being brought up again and again.

We do because again and again the same stuff about infinity and avatars gets brought up when it got debunked so many posts ago, bringing up the same debunked point and then complaining we keep on using the same counter point doesn’t make sense

 

[Sniper670]

Ultima makes some very good points

 

[Everything12]

Well their isn't any rush, it's only been a bit over twenty-four hours since this thread was created.

 

[Jibz]

Can someone reclarify the Hoopa arguments because i am utterly perplexed as to how it could prove an infinite transcendence.

 

[Everything12]

Honestly, I was at well. I just kind of ignore that part and just focus on all the other evidence.

They seem to think that Hoopa reaching the Creation Trio's realm but not Arceus is evidence, and something about Hoopa's rings having infinite power is evidence about something.

It's not really anything notable.

 

[CosmicWreck]

What if I said I already told everyone here the reason for tier 1 Arceus? Which is literally the same as what he said to my friend?

I think you just rely too much on him, he has his own life so sometimes we need to do the change without his presence or we should delete tier 1 if one day people like Ultima leave the wiki

Well at least I know where this particular argument comes from. I'm still confused by some things and I would have preferred if you guys had given us the context of the conversation first, since nothing here seems to relate to Pokemon.

(Also, I agree, having literally two people understanding the tiering system is an objectively bad idea.)

1. He never clarifies what the whole of a coordinate R^4 space means. The whole of our space-time continuum? The whole of multiple space-time continuums? The whole of infinite space-time continuums? All are R^4 coordinate spaces. This would make all characters with large size of type 8 and above qualify for Low 1-C. We have literally never done this. Do we suddenly now make all physical embodiments low 1-C or not? Not really, I'm pretty sure he doesn't have any of these verses in mind when he was stating this, after all.

2. As stated above I don't believe he's operating on the idea that any entity larger than a R^4 space must necessarily be beyond any collection of R^4 universes. This is literally NLF. What properties of having a large size makes this leap of logic possible, and why does this mean they are less beholden to bijection than any other larger collection of universes. It's not like there's any evidence of them being bigger than any possible configuration or anything.

 

[TheDivineHost]

He never clarifies what the whole of a coordinate R^4 space means.

the cartesian product of R with itself is the set of all coordinate pairs (x, y) of real numbers, I.e., the x-y plane

 

[StrymULTRA]

Is better to wait Ultima rather than just speaking for him tbh.

 

[Delta333]

He refers to 4-Dimensional structure whose volume is infinite (2-A). Basically what he wants to say is, the cosmology needs to be either baseline 2-A or Low 1-C as there is no such thing called "above baseline 2-A" structure at all (mathematically any level between countable and uncountable simply doesn't exist).

My problem is that if we have above baseline 2-A AP then we should treat the cosmology similarly but oh well

 

[Jibz]

I've already messaged Ultima on the discord lol just wait

 

[CosmicWreck]

the cartesian product of R with itself is the set of all coordinate pairs (x, y) of real numbers, I.e., the x-y plane

Right, well my point was this was a specific cosmology, and not the entirety of a theoretical coordinate space.

He refers to 4-Dimensional structure whose volume is infinite (2-A). Basically what he wants to say is, the cosmology needs to be either baseline 2-A or Low 1-C as there is no such thing called "above baseline 2-A" structure at all (mathematically any level between countable and uncountable simply doesn't exist).

Right, I understand that but countable in itself stretch onward to beyond infinite degrees of infinity due to the existence of ordered structures called ordinals. My point is, simply being bigger than something that is countable doesn't mean they are automatically uncountable.

My problem is that if we have above baseline 2-A AP then we should treat the cosmology similarly but oh well

I agree with this tbh

Is better to wait Ultima rather than just speaking for him tbh.

I mean, if people are going to raise the point that means they are able to argue for and against it but sure, I can wait for Ultima.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

cough cough.
Cool, then let's upgrade DBH and DND to low 1c aswell, I mean above baseline 2a size/range-requirment doesn't exist at all, does it?

Okay? If you were trying to prove a point here, then you kinda failed cuz I don't care who and what gets upgraded. And barring your seemingly sarcasm, yes, it doesn't exist. I'll kindly requote what was already said earlier:

Transcending the space and time of a 4D construct is Low 1-C because a spatial dimension larger than 4D can only be at least 5D

You can't have "above baseline 2-A" in anything besides AP, and the latter only happens if it's through scaling chains. There's no such thing as "half" of a dimension. No such thing as 4.1 D, 4.2 D, etc. Bigger than 4-D HAS to be 5-D by default if becoming larger than a 4-Dimensional construct.

It does not when above baseline 2a range is infact a thing, there is a staff thread about this going on

IS going on? So it's not actually in effect yet then, assuming there is a thread on it.

I don't know much about that mouse and neither do I want to, but if it is the sole reason for him having low 1c. then might as well downgrade him.

I'm sorry but if you don't need to be uncountably infinitly superior to a 4d being to be 5d, then i can get dbh to be 1b, this logic is not only vague but weird.

Good luck to doing both things then.

Dimensionality and tiers are directly linked and you're arguing about the AP of Arceus, Hoopas tier is irrelevant, though you haven't provided evidence for either.

Not when it comes to the rings. Hoopas tier and Arceus's tier is irrelevant to the point that your missing here, in which the ring's power allows for Hoopa to forcibly interact with the Creation Trio's 4-D Dimensions. That said power being completely incapable of doing the same with Arceus's dimension. That gives the implication of superiority or that would not be the case.

You're just continuing to make assumptions that were never implied in the texts.

Because I don't need "texts" to come to these conclusions when direct showings of Hoopa's rings being worthless compared to Arceus's dimension already exist.

If someone with mastery over only a facet of power from Arceus is able to not only decompress the rings, constrain their power, set limitations on them and seal them away, then I don't understand the need of anything further to suggest Arceus is in fact that superior to something that could forcibly interact with 4-D dimensions (and there is a reason why Hoopa's part in all of this is supporting evidence only).

Hell, it's already implied by the anime that it takes incredibly large levels of energy to pry open portals to Dialga and Palkia's realms when using the Red Chain.

And conceptual existences matter to Arceus's AP how? Don't answer that. It clearly doesn't. This argument is not only irrelevant, but also false, considering, iirc, in Pokemon HGSS it was stated the Original Spirit created space-time before it created the creation trio.

Cal already answered this.

Transcending in such a way and indicating superiority is different that just being an unquantifiable degree of superiority.

Being superior to infinite power that can interact with 4-D space-time is not unquantifiable, hence the point of Hoopa's rings. And this assumes unquantifiable superiority isn't enough for Low 1-C when the standards, and what we actually find acceptable, say otherwise.

Yes, so Arceus is stronger than the Hoopa rings. You realize that's literally the only thing I can gleam from that, since infinite power or not, it's just an interdimensional range feat.

And what says it's just range? This is the issue with this counter argument when nothing says it's only a range issue, and there's really no reason to think that when reaching higher dimensions with the rings is already a confirmed feat for them.

They are all supported by the same degree, since the reasons were never described or even implied tbh.

Failing against a facet of Arceus's power from a human and getting your power sealed away not implying it? The rings getting decompressed inside a space-time distortion Arceus was causing? I aint saying Hoopa's rings are the gold standard of proving it beyond a doubt, but there's definitely implication from this.

That is blatantly untrue. You guys do realize low 2-C characters significantly affect space-time continuums? Which are 4-D? And there can be bigger and smaller universes (pocket dimensions)?

This wasn't a response to you, but sure i'll answer.

Effecting a pocket dimension is in no way shape or form 4-D as its not a universe. This is not a counter argument, and like I said and quoted to Arthex above, you can't have "half" of a dimension.

Hell, even in the anime the Pokemon cosmology have multiverse of different sizes.

Since when? It's all the same multiverse, the anime's multiverse is no different from the others.

It was never stated, and the implication is basically decided based on headcanon. I don't agree.

Doesn't need to be stated, and the implication comes from literal showings of the rings being outright imcomparable. It isnt headcanon.

I don't know about Archie Sonic. I'm dealing with this franchise now, thanks.

I literally never even brought Archie up what is wrong with you. You need to chill.

Again, this wasn't in response to you, you chose to respond to stuff that wasn't said to you.

 

[StrymULTRA]

I think y'all forget that Palkia is the 4 Spatial Axis, and Arceus transcends it, making it essentially with the extra axis, and given Arceus has showcased superiority to 4D axis more than one time, it's Low 1-C.

The end.

 

[Pikaman]

Yeah how we are actually getting such hardline opposition to this blows my mind

Right now standards say this is Low 1-C, seeing people say stuff like

I don't know much about that mouse and neither do I want to, but if it is the sole reason for him having low 1c. then might as well downgrade him.

is so ridiculous, you’re arguing against the Wiki Standards in a Pokémon CRT, this is not the time or place. If you really have an issue, accept this now, start a CRT or whatever, change the F&Q, downgrade Archie Sonic, and THEN we can talk about this not being Low 1-C, until then, arguing about standards is not only pointless but downplaying Pokémon and going against the Wiki’s standards to do it, which is a HUGE issue.

 

[Arthex]

You can't have "above baseline 2-A" in anything besides AP, and the latter only happens if it's through scaling chains. There's no such thing as "half" of a dimension. No such thing as 4.1 D, 4.2 D, etc. Bigger than 4-D HAS to be 5-D by default if becoming larger than a 4-Dimensional construct.

Pardon me for using words like this, but this is stupid. 5d should be uncountably infinitly superior to 4d in nature, if the dimensions mentioned are accepted by the vsbattle standards. what if you are not "above" 4d structures by a uncountablly infinite times? Will that be baseline 2a too?

Many staffs have agreed on this, so unless you wanna go against the whole standards of vsbattle, 5d is not possible.

Also might as well ask the staffs who agreed on above baseline 2a range dragon ball heroes and dungeons and dragons.

IS going on? So it's not actually in effect yet then, assuming there is a thread on it.

chuckles a bit Mister, your argument is the one not in effect yet and it's being rejected quite badly. My argument, is and has been in effect for a long time. So I will say this again, unless you wanna against the whole standards of vsbattle and all the knowledgable people who agree with it, 5d is not possible.

 

[Pikaman]

chuckles a bit

What?

Pardon me for using words like this, but this is stupid. 5d should be uncountably infinitly superior to 4d in nature

F&Q and Archie Sonic standards disagree, change those first and then come and talk about what is and is not 5d