DC Comics - The Legendary DC Heralds Upgrade

[Transcending]

Also you missed two scans.

 

[Deagonx]

It's a membrane between the Dark Multiverse and the Main Multiverse, both of which are infinite. So logically, it itself has to be infinite.

A membrane between two locations does not need to be the same size as those locations.

 

[Transcending]

A membrane between two locations does not need to be the same size as those locations.

In finite cases

 

[Deagonx]

In finite cases

No. Two infinite realms can have a finite border between them. This is very simple logic.

 

[Beyond_transcending]

No. Two infinite realms can have a finite border between them. This is very simple logic.

An infinite space cannot have a finite border, otherwise universes with edges would be infinite.

 

[Deagonx]

An infinite space cannot have a finite border

The word "border" refers to the shared edge between the two realms, not their entire circumference. You can have two infinite spaces which have a shared border that is finite. It's really not a challenging concept.

 

[Beyond_transcending]

The word "border" refers to the shared edge between the two realms, not their entire circumference. You can have two infinite spaces which have a shared border that is finite. It's really not a challenging concept.

If a border between them is finite, what's stopping one of the realms from continuing on to the other?

 

[Vasco]

I believe that's the reason why the wiki believe the gap between 2 universes(4-D) is 5-D cause of higher infinity, but I'm not sure.

 

[Transcending]

I believe that's the reason why the wiki believe the gap between 2 universes(4-D) is 5-D cause of higher infinity, but I'm not sure.

Precisely, and similarly, the membrane between them would be a level of infinity higher, not lower.

 

[Deagonx]

If a border between them is finite, what's stopping one of the realms from continuing on to the other?

Why would that be the case?

Precisely, and similarly, the membrane between them would be a level of infinity higher, not lower.

No. That's not at all true.

 

[Transcending]

No. That's not at all true.

That's...not an argument.

 

[Beyond_transcending]

Why would that be the case?

Because it's infinite? The structure would go beyond any finite structure. Otherwise it wouldn't be infinite, it would have something finite beyond it which it fails to encompass.

 

[Deagonx]

Because it's infinite? The structure would go beyond any finite structure. Otherwise it wouldn't be infinite, it would have something finite beyond it which it fails to encompass.

It is genuinely shocking to me that such simple things must constantly be explained to you two.

An illustration. The finite border is connected to finite sections of the infinite borders of these infinite spaces. I genuinely cannot fathom how you could not reach such a conclusion if you thought critically about these concepts.

That's...not an argument.

You're right. It's a fact.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I believe that's the reason why the wiki believe the gap between 2 universes(4-D) is 5-D cause of higher infinity, but I'm not sure.

If you have two infinite 4th-dimensional objects that are separated from each other, they would require a 5th-dimensional space to be separated against.

 

[Transcending]

If you have two infinite 4th-dimensional objects that are separated from each other, they would require a 5th-dimensional space to be separated against.

THANK YOU!

 

[Deagonx]

If you have two infinite 4th-dimensional objects that are separated from each other, they would require a 5th-dimensional space to be separated against.

Why on earth would that be the case? The concepts we are discussing are completely alien to physics, so if we aren't supporting it with science, what exactly is the basis for such an assumption?

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Ayy lmao

 

[Qawsedf234]

Why on earth would that be the case?

Because two objects cannot occupy the same space while being simultaneously different things. If you have two infinite planes that are separated from each other, there has to be a larger space where they're resting in. Which in DC is just the Bleed.

 

[Deagonx]

Because two objects cannot occupy the same space while being simultaneously different things.

They don't have to occupy the same space in order for both of them to be infinite. Also, I'm not even sure this is true in DC. The 52 universes occupy the same space but are vibrating at different frequencies.

If you have two infinite planes that are separated from each other, there has to be a larger space where they're resting in.

Why?

 

[Qawsedf234]

They don't have to occupy the same space in order for both of them to be infinite.

I know? I said that they were infinite, but resided in different spaces.

Also, I'm not even sure this is true in DC. The 52 universes occupy the same space but are vibrating at different frequencies.

In DC they're all suspended over the bleed, which is the higher dimensional space. There's also the 4th World and the 5th Dimension, all of which are higher dimensional spaces.

Why?

Because that's how separation works. If you have two infinite 2D planes, for them to be different, a third axis to separate those planes are needed.

 

[Deagonx]

In DC they're all suspended over the bleed, which is the higher dimensional space. There's also the 4th World and the 5th Dimension, all of which are higher dimensional spaces.

I'm not saying that DC doesn't have those things, I'm saying there's no reason for it to be considered a necessity. For a long period of time, indeed, the universes were explicitly described as occupying the same physical space, but vibrating at different frequencies.

Because that's how separation works. If you have two infinite 2D planes, for them to be different, a third axis to separate those planes are needed

Why? What is the basis for thinking this?

 

[Qawsedf234]

I'm saying there's no reason for it to be considered a necessity.

That's just the default on the site to my knowledge. If you have two separate dimensional spaces you require a bigger dimensional space for them to fit inside of.

Which DC already has, with its various higher-dimensional spaces.

Why? What is the basis for thinking this?

As an example: How do you know that two pieces of paper are different from each other? Because they exist in different axis, which separates them. To define a one-dimensional line you require a two-dimensional plane. To define a two-dimensional square, you require a third-dimensional plane. To define a third-dimensional object you require a fourth-dimensional axis, etc.

If you have what varies from 52 to an infinite amount of alternate universes, each one separated from the others, they would require a bigger backdrop to occupy.

 

[Deagonx]

That's just the default on the site to my knowledge. If you have two separate dimensional spaces you require a bigger dimensional space for them to fit inside of.

If that's codified on the wiki somewhere, I'll make a CRT to change it this instant, because that's completely wrong.

Which DC already has, with its various higher-dimensional spaces.

It does, but the Phantom Zone isn't one of them, and wouldn't be assumed to be so on account of it being described as a membrane between the light and dark multiverses.

As an example: How do you know that two pieces of paper are different from each other? Because they exist in different axis, which separates them. To define a one-dimensional line you require a two-dimensional plane. To define a two-dimensional square, you require a third-dimensional plane. To define a third-dimensional object you require a fourth-dimensional axis, etc.

This is incorrect. For reference, this is a graph.

If we draw a line from "-2,0" which extends infinitely backwards, and a line from "2,0" which extends infinitely forward, we would have two infinite lines that share a single dimension, and the finite line segment separating them from -2 to 2 is still on a single dimension. The y axis of the graph isn't necessary to separate two infinite lines with a finite line segment.

Further, if we imagine two planes, one which extends infinite backwards on the x axis from -2, and infinitely up and down the y axis, and repeat the same from 2, we could separate them with a finite two-dimensional section from -2 to 2 on the x axis, and (for instance) -2 to 2 on the y axis. We'd have two separated infinite planes, a finite section that connects them, and completely empty space above and below the finite border (in DC we could imagine this to be the Overvoid, or whatever you prefer, but proof of concept is the crucial thing here.)

For obvious reasons, we can extrapolate this further to a 3-D graph.

Point being, there's no reason to think we need a higher dimensional barrier to separate two infinite planes, or spaces.

 

[Antvasima]

Barbados was chained up and superman simply knocked him out with a hit.

Chained up by the tenth metal, which is an extreme weakness for him?

 

[Antvasima]

If that's codified on the wiki somewhere, I'll make a CRT to change it this instant, because that's completely wrong.


It does, but the Phantom Zone isn't one of them, and wouldn't be assumed to be so on account of it being described as a membrane between the light and dark multiverses.


This is incorrect. For reference, this is a graph.

If we draw a line from "-2,0" which extends infinitely backwards, and a line from "2,0" which extends infinitely forward, we would have two infinite lines that share a single dimension, and the finite line segment separating them from -2 to 2 is still on a single dimension. The y axis of the graph isn't necessary to separate two infinite lines with a finite line segment.

Further, if we imagine two planes, one which extends infinite backwards on the x axis from -2, and infinitely up and down the y axis, and repeat the same from 2, we could separate them with a finite two-dimensional section from -2 to 2 on the x axis, and (for instance) -2 to 2 on the y axis. We'd have two separated infinite planes, a finite section that connects them, and completely empty space above and below the finite border (in DC we could imagine this to be the Overvoid, or whatever you prefer, but proof of concept is the crucial thing here.)

For obvious reasons, we can extrapolate this further to a 3-D graph.

Point being, there's no reason to think we need a higher dimensional barrier to separate two infinite planes, or spaces.

You should take up this issue in private with @DontTalkDT and myself, as what you suggest would require extremely serious revisions to our entire wiki.

Let's stick to what is relevant for this thread alone instead, such as that we cannot scale characters to High 3-A or Low 2-C based on completely unproven and likely extremely hyperbolic statements.

 

[Qawsedf234]

If that's codified on the wiki somewhere, I'll make a CRT to change it this instant, because that's completely wrong.

I'm not seeing why it's wrong. You need other dimensional axis to tell something of infinite size is different from another object of infinite size.

It does, but the Phantom Zone isn't one of them, and wouldn't be assumed to be so on account of it being described as a membrane between the light and dark multiverses.

I wasn't talking about the Phantom Zone, which doesn't have anything more than Tier 2 or Tier 3 evidence without going into hyperbolic statements. I'm saying that for different infinite dimensional spaces to be different, they require a higher dimensional backdrop (which in DC is the Bleed). But that doesn't mean anyone would ever scale to said higher dimensional backdrop.

If we draw a line from "-2,0" which extends infinitely backwards, and a line from "2,0" which extends infinitely forward, we would have two infinite lines that share a single dimension, and the finite line segment separating them from -2 to 2 is still on a single dimension. The y axis of the graph isn't necessary to separate two infinite lines with a finite line segment.

In this comparison their separation still relies on the second dimension. Without the zero you couldn't tell the two lines were different, so a higher dimensional backdrop is needed.

 

[Deagonx]

I'm not seeing why it's wrong. You need other dimensional axis to tell something of infinite size is different from another object of infinite size.

I just demonstrated why it's wrong. Can you demonstrate that a line from -2 to -inf is different from a line from 2 to inf without a 2-dimensional object? The answer is yes.

In this comparison they're separation still relies on the second dimension. Without the zero you couldn't tell the two lines were different, so a higher dimensional backdrop is needed.

No it doesn't. I was just using a graph for reference. The fact that all of them were "0s" on the Y axis was meant to demonstrate that the Y axis was irrelevant, but we can alter the analogy to remove that aspect of it if it is confusing.

The line "-2 to -inf" is clearly different from the line "2 to inf" with a finite 1 dimensional separator "-2 to 2." There is nothing about that which requires a 2nd dimension. And I also gave a 2-D example, so that can't be overlooked either. You do not need a 2 dimensional partition to separate two infinite lines, and you do not need a 3 dimensional partition to separate two infinite planes.

I looked on the wiki to see if this was written somewhere and I didn't see that, which is good, that saves us the trouble of fixing this with a CRT, but if characters are scaled based on this notion it needs to be changed.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I just demonstrated why it's wrong. Can you demonstrate that a line from -2 to -inf is different from a line from 2 to inf without a 2-dimensional object? The answer is yes.

You can't without that second-dimensional space. A line is a one-dimensional object Deagon. To tell two infinite lines apart you require a 2nd dimension.

The line "-2 to -inf" is clearly different from the line "2 to inf"

It isn't because the infinity concept on requires no beginning or end, its the mathematical idea of all numbers. Without a larger reference point you can't separate either line from the other.

I looked on the wiki to see if this was written somewhere and I didn't see that

What do you mean?

A: One of the more straightforward ways to qualify for Tier 2 and up through higher dimensions is by affecting whole higher-dimensional universes which can embed the whole of lower-dimensional ones within themselves. For example: A cosmology where the entirety of our 3-dimensional universe is in fact a subset of a much greater 4-dimensional space, or generalizations of this same scenario to higher numbers of dimensions; i.e A cosmology where the four-dimensional spacetime continuum is just the infinitesimal surface of a 5-dimensional object, and etc.

However, vaguer cases where a universe is merely stated to be higher-dimensional while existing in a scaling vacuum with no previously established relationship of superiority towards lower-dimensional ones (or no evidence to infer such a relationship from) should be analysed more carefully. In such cases where information as to their exact nature and scale is scarce, it is preferable that the higher dimensions in question be fully-sized in order to qualify.

Furthermore, higher-dimensional entities can also qualify for higher tiers when the verse which they are from explicitly defines them as being infinitely above lower-dimensional ones in power and/or existential status. An example of this being verses such as Umineko no Naku Koro ni. However, lower-dimensional beings being stated to be "flat" in comparision to higher-dimensional aliens is not necessarily grounds for assuming the latter has infinitely more power (For reasons outlined in the answer above), and thus, such scenarios must also be analyzed case-by-case.

A: "Transcendence" is a vague term which can be used in several contexts, many of which do not at all align with how it is normally used in our forums, as it simply means "to go beyond the ordinary", first and foremost. For example, statements of "transcending space and time" can refer to things like time travel, dimensional travel, or even agelessness in some cases. Hence, it is very preferable to ascertain the meaning of statements involving this term from background context (If there is any), being especially careful around flowery language or purple prose.

Now, one of the most common scenarios where this question might arise is when dealing with cosmologies involving "higher planes of existence" or similar structures. In such cases, it's very important to note what exactly being a "higher plane" entails in the context of the setting: For instance, it's very common for Heaven and Hell to be defined as higher and lower planes of existence respectively in relation to the normal universe, in which case, "higher" and "lower" tends to simply indicate their position in a cosmology, as opposed to any kind of existential status, which is obviously not enough for anything remotely Tier 1.

They can qualify, however, if said "higher plane" is defined as having a relationship of qualitative superiority over lower realms in one way or another, such as by perceiving them as literal fiction/unreality (or being comparatively more "real" in nature), encompassing them in an infinitesimal portion of itself, residing in a higher state of being altogether, and etc.

If a bigger space contains a number of lower infinite dimensional spaces, we can infer that it's a higher dimensional backdrop.

 

[AerrowStorm1]

OK, so I'm not gonna be here forever, just going to try to find all the times the Phantom Zone's size was mentioned.

Adventure Comics vol 2 (2009) #11 refers to it as Endless

In Superman vol 2 (1987) #214: For Tomorrow, Zod calls it Limitless

In Action comics #754, Superman describes it as "near infinite"

 

[Deagonx]

A line is a one-dimensional object Deagon. To tell two infinite lines apart you require a 2nd dimension.

I have yet to hear a single explanation why, just the repeated assertion that it's necessary.

It isn't because the infinity concept on requires no beginning or end, its the mathematical idea of all numbers. Without a larger reference point you can't separate either line from the other.

No it isn't, there are multiple co-existing infinities within mathematics. The amount of numbers between 0 and 1 is infinite, but is distinct from the infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2.

Similarly, the left half of a graph and the right half of a graph can each go on infinitely, but a third-dimensional object isn't needed to tell them apart.

If a bigger space contains a number of lower infinite dimensional spaces, we can infer that it's a higher dimensional backdrop.

A partition does not contain the two spaces, it separates them.

I will try to use another analogy, one that can make sense with a three-dimensional space.

These balloons are connected by a finite tube. Each could continue to expand in opposite directions infinitely, but still be connected by the finite object. We wouldn't need some kind of fourth-dimensional container for this to be the case.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I have yet to hear a single explanation why, just the repeated assertion that it's possible.

I explained why, I just don't think you're getting me.

The amount of numbers between 0 and 1 is infinite, but is distinct from the infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2.

A transfinite number is a different type of infinity compared to what we use, which is just a true infinite concept that encompasses all numbers.

These balloons are connected by a finite tube. Each could continue to expand in opposite directions infinitely, but still be connected by the finite object. We wouldn't need some kind of fourth-dimensional container for this to be the case.

But even in that case, the reason why they can expand in an infinite direction while being different is because of a higher dimensional backdrop, which as noted by our FAQ is a perfectly valid means of saying a space is higher dimensionally.

 

[Deagonx]

But even in that case, the reason why they can expand in an infinite direction while being different is because of a higher dimensional backdrop

What higher dimensional backdrop? Everything is three-dimensional here. Where is the fourth spatial dimension?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Where is the fourth spatial dimension?

Its the n-axis separating the two infinite spaces.

Your comparison can work if the orbs start as finite things or as transfinite things, but my point was always about infinite dimensional spaces and our FAQ page notes the inference stuff I was talking about before.

 

[Deagonx]

Its the n-axis separating the two infinite spaces.

You'll have to explain what you mean here.

Your comparison can work if the orbs start as finite things or as transfinite things, but my point was always about infinite dimensional spaces and our FAQ page notes the inference stuff I was talking about before.

Infinite dimensional as in something that has infinite spatial dimensions? I am talking about infinitely sized 3D spheres. As I showed, they can be infinite on opposite sides of a tube and this does not require a 4D container.

 

[Qawsedf234]

You'll have to explain what you mean here.

Higher dimensions don't have a specific letter like the first three to my understanding. So in a coordinate plane will be [X, Y, Z, n^n] depending on how high you're going.

I am talking about infinitely sized 3D spheres. As I showed, they can be infinite on opposite sides of a tube and this does not require a 4D container.

They can transfinite on both sides, but if both were fully infinite they would require a higher dimensional separation as I said.

 

[Deagonx]

Higher dimensions don't have a specific letter like the first three to my understanding.

Okay, so in the context of a 3-dimensional space, we're talking about a 4-th dimensional backdrop. I am truly struggling to understand why you assert that such a thing is necessary to distinguish these two balloons.

They can transfinite on both sides, but if both were fully infinite they would require a higher dimensional separation as I said.

Yes, you keep saying that, but I do not understand at all. And how do we determine whether an "infinite multiverse" in the context of something like DC is "transfinite" or "fully infinite?"

 

[Qawsedf234]

And how do we determine whether an "infinite multiverse" in the context of something like DC is "transfinite" or "fully infinite?"

You can only do so based on statements. It's why its harder to get High 3-A than it is to get 3-A, because a statement about it being infinite or endless is required, rather than the assumption of natural universal expansion.

 

[Deagonx]

Okay. Well, to be clear, I still feel very very strongly that it is not logical to assume that two infinite universes must be contained within a higher dimensional space in order to be considered separated, and I do not believe that a partition between two such things must itself be infinite or higher-dimensional. Many infinities can co-exist. It'd be one thing if we were talking about concrete science, but these are totally fictional notions. If someone wrote, explicitly, that two infinite spaces were separated by a finite realm what would our objection to that be based on? Math? Math has lots of co-existing infinities, but the exist of a "true/absolute" infinity is still controversial, and there's no such concept in science, so what is it?

 

[Qawsedf234]

If someone wrote, explicitly, that two infinite spaces were separated by a finite realm what would our objection to that be based on?

We wouldn't have an objection, we'd just go with the work. The policies I quoted covers this Deagon.

 

[Deagonx]

We wouldn't have an objection, we'd just go with the work. The policies I quoted covers this Deagon.

Okay. Then to the original point, I do not think the scan that refers to the phantom zone as a "membrane" between the multiverses is indicative of it being higher dimensional nor infinite.