I don't understand what you are saying.
Then let me simplify it for you.
Does David Bohm actually mention "infinite-dimensional" spaces as part of his implicate/explicate order theory?
You're going to need scans for this, first for the fact that they are part of "creation" and secondly that "a universe" in the context of Buddy's feat should be interpretted as "creation."
Buddy says the works of creation will cease before creating a universe. That doesn't mean creating a universe constitutes "creation" but rather that "the works of creation" encompasses creating individual universes, which is what Buddy did.
Why do you ask for "confirmation" that "creation = universe", then borderline contradict yourself in trying to institute an arbitrary distinction between "creation", "the works of creation", and "the universe"?
There's also
this scan, which alone is proof that "creation", when described as a unit, is synonymous with (the whole) "universe" in Animal Man.
Why would we use interview statements? Grant Morrison answers to the editors of DC. What he says in interviews isn't necessarily vetted by DC to adhere to canon, unlike what he prints in his stories.
...Because we've always used published interview statements? Seriously, is this some sort of joke?
And where does this absurd notion that "writer interview statements aren't necessarily canon" come from? This is still the same writer. He doesn't need approval from DC Comics editorial to say something about his own work. What writers think about their work aren't somehow entirely disconnected from the work itself. We can discard the parts of the interview that somehow contradict the work itself.
The definition of words matters. Carelessly equating "beyond" and "transcend" isn't semantics. It's nonsense.
They're clearly equal in the specific contexts in which "beyond" is being used. Words can have more than one meaning, and words can be associated with the concepts underlying other words.
I see clearly that they do not mean the same thing.
They may not mean exactly the same thing in all contexts, but in certain others they very much relate to each other.
I can't help but noticed that you ignored a specific element of one of the definitions outlined for you, so here it is again, with said certain important element bolded for emphasis by me.
to rise above or go beyond the limits of; to triumph over the negative or restrictive aspects of : overcome; to be prior to, beyond, and above (the universe or material existence)… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
"1a
: to rise above or
go beyond the limits of
b
: to triumph over the negative or restrictive aspects of
: OVERCOME
c
: to be prior to,
beyond, and above (the universe or material existence)"
Why? How do the words "deeper" and "more fundamental" equate to 'beyond' or 'transcend?' And how do we make the leap from there to "infinitely greater than?"
Because they're "deeper" and "more fundamental" in such a manner that they completely surpass the "limitations" of physical reality. They don't have spacetime, matter, or any other aspects of the "explicate order" of physical reality by themselves, yet this same explicate order is generated by them. Ergo, they are beyond it, they transcend it. They're
infinitely greater than it.
Greater spatial dimensions imply infinite transcendence. There are also instances in which certain infinities are expanded infinitely (such as an infinite amount of infinite universes). That's the kind of evidence needed. If we are simply taking every instance of 1 realm being "greater than" another as infinite, then we are basically making things up out of thin air.
Has there
ever been a cosmological context in which one realm is described/depicted as "being greater" than another without also implying an "infinite" kind of transcendence? I'm pretty sure that has never actually happened. Animal Man
mentioned higher dimensions too, so this is just a moot point all around.
Also, higher spatial dimensions don't necessarily imply infinite transcendence, and we haven't assumed such a thing since 2018. Umineko simply explained its higher dimensions in a way that means it does, while DC both stated and showed higher spatial dimensions operating in such a way that means it does.
Heaven is beyond the Universe, but that does not mean Heaven is equal to infinite universes. That information is simply not present in the word "beyond." We can find numerous instances in DC itself where realms that clearly and explicitly do not transcend the universe are still stated to be beyond it. Azarath is stated to be "of neither time nor space" but it's little more than a pocket dimension. You can't use flowery cosmic language like this to assume everything outside the universe is infinitely transcending it.
Your heaven analogy is false because it is ignorant of context. Is this hypothetical heaven "beyond" the universe in the sense of simply being "just outside" it, or is it "beyond" the universe in the sense that it literally surpasses the universe's very fundamental attributes, aspects, and elements (such as spacetime and mass-energy)?
Your Azarath analogy is false because none of the structures being discussed here are just pocket dimensions, or reducible to mere pocket dimensions, or anything like mere pocket dimensions.
That's literally what it means. You posted a definition that proves that. It isn't dishonest to insist that the meaning of a word should not be construed as something wildly wildly greater than what it actually means. What's dishonest is taking a word that means "outside of" and insisting it implies infinite transcendence when there are numerous counterexamples of this.
"Beyond" doesn't
just mean "outside of". The very definitions I just posted prove that's not all that it means, and trying to pretend otherwise is itself dishonest.
You're splitting hairs, trying to force arbitrary distinctions where there aren't any, ignoring boatloads of context and context clues, and just generally being incredibly obtuse about the whole situation. Your entire argument right now is based on a distinction between "beyond", "transcend", and a previously never argued-over "infinite transcendence" that, in this context, doesn't actually exist.
First, I don't see any scan in this CRT that describes being "beyond the concept of space and time etc." You have added this word "concept" even though none of the scans so far use language like that.
But other than that, yes. Why are we assuming that something outside time and space is infinitely greater than it? Like I said, you can find this kind of language used in instances where it clearly doesn't imply infinite transcendence.
Azarath is
neither of time nor space
Trigon's power is
immeasurable and terrible beyond any human comprehension
But Azarath is just a small realm, and Trigon has never been much more than a universal threat at best (usually as a conquerer, not as someone that can literally destroy universes. He was recently beaten by Bizarro.)
We can't rely on vague language like "not of time and space" to mean 2-A or 1-C or something like that unless this level of transcendence is actually demonstrated. New Genesis and Apokolips have repeatedly been described with language like that, but the portrayal of these realms has varied wildly in terms of how much greater it is than a universe.
I added the word "concept" because the realms being involved are metaphysical in their nature, despite the word "concept
And why are you comparing the aspatiotemporal properties of a pocket dimension and what may or may not be hyperbole related to a demon lord's power to the clearly and consistently described properties of the metaphysical realms of Animal Man? These are apples and oranges and pears comparisons.
We already have an explanation for the realms of the Fourth World that has worked for years now: Platonic realms, and their emanations.
I can't help but notice that "subtle" attempt at downplaying Trigon too.
Where is that in the scans?
"The explicate unfolding from the infinite".
Why do you keep asking questions already answered a while ago?
What relevance does this phrase have to the CRT we are discussing? Being "beyond a concept" is, in and of itself, a vague and potentially incoherent phrase either way. It doesn't have any literal practical meaning by itself, so you would have to start by explaining what that means within the context of the story.
Because it's a part of the scans. The individual "self" is supposed to be superseded by the greater expanse of the World Soul. The "self" is tied to physical reality, which the World Soul and the other metaphysical realms are qualitatively superior too.
These things don't exist in isolation or a vacuum, even within the story itself.
