- 1,263
- 394
- Thread starter
- #81
One question why can't we use composite cosmology.
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.
Because of the contradictions between the authors. Also, dividing the cosmologies would be much simpler to tier DC characters more accurately, though this may be debatable.One question why can't we use composite cosmology.
Because of the contradictions between the authors. Also, dividing the cosmologies would be much simpler to tier DC characters more accurately, though this may be debatable.
Am pretty sure the multiverse map solved most of the contradiction but this is a topic for another DayBecause of the contradictions between the authors. Also, dividing the cosmologies would be much simpler to tier DC characters more accurately, though this may be debatable.
Just incase this is accepted wouldn't it make GM multiverse high 1B?Okay, i found the scans about the Red since the links in the OP aren't working.
"The web of life -- waiting, stretching into infinity -- catches me."
"I recognize myself in mirrors reflecting higher dimensions."
"The field is a mesh of countless smaller fields; each one a blueprint which guides the formation of atoms into molecules, molecules into cells, cells into tissues, systems! Every species is represented by its own field. Its own ideal form! It's like plato's archetypal reality, more subtle."
I need to read more before giving my final thought, but it makes senses. I don't know for the 1-A stuffs. For the Animal Masters and the Red, There's a big CRT about DC Cosmology with all the separate cosmologies going on. Because we are currently using a composite cosmology, recreating the DC Multiverse is 1-A, but Morrison's Cosmology alone is not 1-A. I agree with the OP for now.
Maybe.Just incase this is accepted wouldn't it make GM multiverse high 1B?
Great. Can’t wait to see all the irrelevant excuses people will make to try and deny this.
Ok the can you tag them again?We still need more input.
I'm not seeing the word "void" anywhere in those scans nor an indication of transcending something.Animal Masters transcend into the Void before Creation and recreate all of reality
This is heavily editorialized. The first scan calls him the "Ineffable Antithesis" but never calls him the 'antithesis to creation.' The second scan calls him "a shadow formed by existence itself" not "the shadow of creation" which implies a less grandiose relationship. Though even if the scans had said what you claim I'm not sure why it's being included as it's too vague to interpret as a power level.He also scales to antago who is the antithesis to creation, who his also the shadow of creation and would have sucked all creation to the void
At the expense of sounding harsh, literally none of this could be considered a reasonable or grounded interpretation of the scans. There is never said to be an 'infinite amount of higher dimensions'' There is a scan that mentions an "infinite web of life" and about the character seeing himself in "mirrors that reflect higher dimensions." These two statements aren't even on the same page and aren't connected in any way. I see no reference to space and time at all, let alone something saying it transcends it.THE red stretches across an infinite amount of higher dimensions and also transcends space and time altogether it's also a mesh for plantonic forms.
Those with red/animal master can can transcend to the space beyond all knowing of time and space
These two statements in separate pages cannot be connected in the manner you are suggesting without actual evidence connecting the two.scans happens in the same chapter when it first state higher dimensions the next scan then states the red stretches to infinity if you combine the scans together Morrison is saying it stretches into infinite higher dimensions
Well, the first problem is that the evidence isn't fairly represented. There's several instances in which he simply quotes the scans incorrectly, or draws conclusions that aren't supported by the statements themselves. It's always a red flag when someone is editorializing the scans. In a best case scenario, the scan should be quoted almost verbatim, and if you want to explain what you think it means then you add that, with your reasoning/rationale included.So basically he didn't work the CRT well?
Okay, I understand so it's basically good when making CRTs to word what are shown or stated in the scan without bringing our own interpretation of it as not to cause any contradictions.A lot of people quote what they think should be concluded from the scan, and then link the scan, which can leave something thinking that the scan actually says that when it doesn't. For example, he could say that Antagon being the "Ineffable Antithesis" can be reasonably interpreted to be in connection to creation, but he shouldn't pseudo-quote the scan without notating that this is just his interpretation, not something the comic says.
True but infinite dimensions is just 1-B and transcending such should be low 1A. But I get everything so now he has to explain what or clarify to us what makes Animal man such teir.The other problem, and this is a big one that a lot of people have particularly with Tier 1 threads, is that he didn't connect the evidence to the 1-A criteria. Hypothetically, even if the scans said what he says they did, we're still left to fill in the blanks of why it makes the character 1-A, when it's his responsibility to explain that as the author of the CRT.
Almost, but not quite. You can bring your own interpretation, but you should explain that interpretation from a verbatim quote of the scan rather than simply stating your interpretation and linking the scan. If you provide your reasoning there's nothing wrong with interpreting something a certain way, as long as you're prepared to defend that interpretation with objective evidence.Okay, I understand so it's basically good when making CRTs to word what are shown or stated in the scan without bringing our own interpretation of it as not to cause any contradictions.
Yeah that's kind of the idea. We can infer what his reasoning is, but it's best if he provides it directly so that it can be responded to. Otherwise you'll have people debunking an implication only for the OP to say "that's not what my point was" or something similar.True but infinite dimensions is just 1-B and transcending such should be low 1A. But I get everything so now he has to explain what or clarify to us what makes Animal man such teir.
I'd be willing to add a footnote. Having read the Animal Man page I'm not sure what we'd say in it from this CRT though. Maybe something about existing in an incorporeal space? But also there's very very little context for the scans and I am not sure who is saying what and about whom.What do you think that we should do here, and would you be willing to add a footnote section about this issue to our Animal Man profile page?
Well, just debunks of claims that Animal Man is High 1-B to 1-A, basically.I'd be willing to add a footnote. Having read the Animal Man page I'm not sure what we'd say in it from this CRT though. Maybe something about existing in an incorporeal space? But also there's very very little context for the scans and I am not sure who is saying what and about whom.
I'm iffy on whether it's necessary. I'd advocate for including it if there was evidence that could be easily misinterpreted as 1-A, but I don't see any evidence like that here. If it comes up again and someone has the same interpretation, then I think it would worth revisiting. That's just my opinion, though.Well, just debunks of claims that Animal Man is High 1-B to 1-A, basically.
If you read the scan you would see where it States a place that is not of time or space a place that existed before creation and pretty sure it was void that existed before creation.I'm not seeing the word "void" anywhere in those scans nor an indication of transcending something.
This is heavily editorialized. The first scan calls him the "Ineffable Antithesis" but never calls him the 'antithesis to creation.' The second scan calls him "a shadow formed by existence itself" not "the shadow of creation" which implies a less grandiose relationship. Though even if the scans had said what you claim I'm not sure why it's being included as it's too vague to interpret as a power level.
For the third scan, it does say that all of creation will be sucked into the void if Antagon wins, but it's not clear if Antagon himself is doing it or how he's accomplishing it, so I think scaling from it would require more specific evidence.
At the expense of sounding harsh, literally none of this could be considered a reasonable or grounded interpretation of the scans. There is never said to be an 'infinite amount of higher dimensions'' There is a scan that mentions an "infinite web of life" and about the character seeing himself in "mirrors that reflect higher dimensions." These two statements aren't even on the same page and aren't connected in any way. I see no reference to space and time at all, let alone something saying it transcends it.
The scan says:
"release yourselves into the space beyond all knowing..."
and in a separate text box "join us in the place that is not of time and space"
The phrase "knowing" is not connected to "time and space" in the manner you suggest. This location is not of time and space, that much is clear, but I'm not sure why you feel that's relevant.
These two statements in separate pages cannot be connected in the manner you are suggesting without actual evidence connecting the two.
In conclusion, this entire CRT seems to be based on heavily editorialized evidence, and provided no explanation for how the evidence justifies 1-A even if it was in-fact portrayed how he claimed. Maybe there's something to these scans that justifies a revision of some kind, but OP has not done an adequate job of explaining why that's the case.
Right, so this is the reasoning you've provided:it States a place that is not of time or space a place that existed before creation and pretty sure it was void that existed before creation.
I saw the scans, but I didn't see the first line of your post as I was distracted by the embedded image. I'll address it now.You also ignored the scans of him creating creation and fixing the source and the m mfield.
The scans simply say create a universe which is nowhere near 1-A.They transcended into the void before creation and created all reality and creation hereby saving the source, the m-field.
You are the one that said antithesis to creation:Also about this statement of atangon being the antithesis of existence not creation.
Either way, the scan doesn't tell us what he is the antithesis of.He also scales to antago who is the antithesis to creation
Referring to your conclusion as obvious isn't an appropriate way to conduct a debate. They never explain how that's going to happen. You are assuming that Antagon himself will do so, and that's fine for you to assume that, but it isn't a basis for a CRT, at least not in my opinion. Not without evidence that indicates that he's the one doing it.It literally says all creation would be sucked in void if Atagon wins. They don't need to explain how he will do that it's clear as day. The obvious answer would be he would suck creation into the void no matter how you try to play it that's what it's implying. The way Atagon is writing it's implying that.
Okay, but you said that it was infinite higher dimensions, which is not supported by the scans.About the red it seems you missed the point. The red stretches to infinity and says the red encompasses higher dimensions that's what the scan his meant for.
Didn’t Morrison base The Red off of David Bohm’s theory of the implicate order?About the red it seems you missed the point. The red stretches to infinity and says the red encompasses higher dimensions that's what the scan his meant for.
It doesn't really matter what he based it off of if he did not put those aspects of the theory in a DC comic book.Didn’t Morrison base The Red off of David Bohm’s theory of the implicate order?
It could be, but there isn't actual on-panel evidence for that.the idea that the life web stretches to infinity while also reflecting higher dimensions can be inferred as the Red enfold and unfolding into infinite dimensionionality.
Except he did. So we can indeed conclude infinite higher dimensions based off the evidence.It doesn't really matter what he based it off of if he did not put those aspects of the theory in a DC comic book.
It could be, but there isn't actual on-panel evidence for that.
Weather you agree it's the void or not it's still transcends creation. Also when did I say it transcends the void?Right, so this is the reasoning you've provided:
A place that is not of time or space, which existed before creation = void before creation.
Well, that could be true, but it could be something else as well. However, let's say it is the void before creation. Where are you getting the impression that they transcended it?
I saw the scans, but I didn't see the first line of your post as I was distracted by the embedded image. I'll address it now.
The scans simply say create a universe which is nowhere near 1-A.
I saw the scans, but I didn't see the first line of your post as I was distracted by the embedded image. I'll address it now.
The scans simply say create a universe which is nowhere near 1-A.
You are the one that said antithesis to creation:
Either way, the scan doesn't tell us what he is the antithesis of.
.
If atangon isn't the one doing it why did they say if he wins creation would be sucked into a void it's common sense and the most logical outcome. Also the nature of his being as the shadow of creation and antithesis implies he is the one who would destroy creation.Referring to your conclusion as obvious isn't an appropriate way to conduct a debate. They never explain how that's going to happen. You are assuming that Antagon himself will do so, and that's fine for you to assume that, but it isn't a basis for a CRT, at least not in my opinion. Not without evidence that indicates that he's the one doing it.
In your scan, he gives various interpretations of the same concept, one of which is Bohm's theory. This does not necessarily mean that Bohm's theory is canon to DC (nor necessarily David Peat's interpretation of Bohm, which is what you quoted), it only tells us that the character is aware of the theory, as well as many others (such as Dreamtime from the Aboriginals, Nagual from the Yaqui Indians, and he was about to expand on another similar concept from the Hopi).Except he did. So we can indeed conclude infinite higher dimensions based off the evidence.
How so?Weather you agree it's the void or not it's still transcends creation
Do you have evidence that universe means all of creation here?the universe which means creation in this case.
The scan does not state this, unless there is a second scan that says "antithesis" which I overlooked.The scan states he is an antithesis for existence
You can do something to facilitate an event without actually being capable of performing the event yourself.If atangon isn't the one doing it why did they say if he wins creation would be sucked into a void it's common sense and the most logical outcome.
I disagree with this based the creation of the MOTM and it's M-theory in one book.Morrison has afterwards seemed to strictly limit the cosmology to the 11 dimensions of some branches of string theory.