Dc DeMateis cosmology and yet

[Brahmatman]

Hello, everyone! I'm making a new post about DC cosmology.
Last time, I didn't format the post very well and couldn't discuss some topics related to infinities dimensions.

https://vk.com/away.php?to=https://vsbattles.com/threads/dc-dimensions.161282/

DeMateis:

I would like to discuss some details of Demmateis cosmology, which for some reason no one takes into account.

Individual/Collective Unconscious:
In the individual unconscious, a living being, using willpower and imagination, is capable of creating its own personal, infinite universe.
All other parallel universes float in bubbles alongside each other. All dreams are entirely objective and real things, representing a separate reality. They are much larger than just objective or non-objective.
The very chain of the dream hierarchy represents a collective unconscious existence, a multitude of dreams in one sequence. And any lower dream is just a manifestation of a higher dream. As we can see in the example of this scan, showing that the other is just the dream of another being.
And the subsequent dream is only, once again, the dream of another being, representing an infinite recursion or hierarchy of dreams, where each subsequent dream is only the dream of a higher being.
>In fact of the matter is there's really no such things as the end.
Even if, somehow, one cannot accept an infinite hierarchy of dreams, why can't we simply acknowledge the fact that in any case, each dream is only the offspring of another dream, which will be the product of another, and so on? I mean that the absence of an indication of the infinity of the hierarchy is not always a mandatory factor for deducing other ways of interpreting the hierarchical system. In this case, ANY dream will be the product of another dream, meaning it simply cannot end.

Based on this, we get High 1-B for an infinite hierarchy of dreams, where each previous dream is merely a dream of the subsequent one. Alternatively, a Low 1-A if we use a reference to vectors.

Human souls:
Each person (soul) has its own heaven after death.
Living beings, after death, create for themselves what they desire - heavens dictated by their religious beliefs, an idealized afterlife, individual, personal heavens crafted by consciousness and soul after they have passed away.
As we know from Doctor Fate, there are many heavens because there are also many souls that need somewhere to fit in or go after losing their physical shell, their body.
In the heavens, concepts like higher or lower in the context of higher planes simply do not matter, do not exist—they are too insignificant or nonexistent for the higher, spiritual realm. It is akin to a being attempting to transition from 0D to 1D or vice versa, but it simply could not, because in its world (the heavens), such concepts simply have no meaning or significance.
>A Higher plane? Higher and lower where and when they have so little meaning here!

Based on this, we get 1-A, souls/Heavens that ignore the hierarchy below or above, which may be derived from a higher dream. Either a Low 1-A if, in other cases, spatial coordinates are not taken into account.

Spatial Dimensions:
I know you rejected the acceptance of this directive, although I didn't quite understand why. Would you mind if I add it again?
There are any number of spatial coordinates in the Universe.
I see no reason not to accept this statement about any number of spatial coordinates, as both in terminology and in context and its use, it fits perfectly with any/infinite number of spatial coordinates. In this scan, it is stated that myriad different vectors are being created. "Myriad" in Greek can mean ten thousand of something specific, but this does not fit the context, as it is mentioned a bit later that there can be any number of vectors, so they cannot be ten thousand, as they have any quantity. Therefore, in terminology, we can use "myriad" to represent an infinite set.
There and here. And yet.
In context, it fits perfectly as the impossibility to count spatial vectors.

Based on this, we get High 1-B for having any number of coordinates that are impossible to count or constitute an infinite set.

Based on the evidence provided above, the level for Dc should be 1-A.

Source:
Doctor Fate v2 (Human souls)
Spectre v4 (Heavens)
League of Justice (Spatial dimension)
Green lantern: Will world (Dream)

Sorry if someone did not understand my text, English is not my native language, but I am very interested in topics of discussion of fiction.

 

[Deymoc13]

Seems OK. I agree

 

[Deagonx]

And the subsequent dream is only, once again, the dream of another being

I'm not sure I see how this is a dream? He's looking at a crystal ball.

In the heavens, concepts like higher or lower in the context of higher planes simply do not matter, do not exist—they are too insignificant or nonexistent for the higher, spiritual realm. It is akin to a being attempting to transition from 0D to 1D or vice versa, but it simply could not, because in its world (the heavens), such concepts simply have no meaning or significance.

Your scan doesn't say most of this. It just says "higher, lower, where and when, they have so little meaning here." It doesn't say that these concepts don't exist or that it's about Heaven being so beyond them or anything like that.

I know you rejected the acceptance of this directive, although I didn't quite understand why. Would you mind if I add it again?
There are any number of spatial coordinates in the Universe.

Given that they're talking about witnessing the birth of universes, my inclination is that "time being created in a myriad of vectors" and "experience being folded into any number of spatial dimensions" is just a continuation of that since it's all in the same paragraph. As in, each new universe is a new "vector" of time and a new spatial dimension for experience.

 

[OlafThorsson]

I'm totally down with that awesome dude. Brahmatman is the best.

 

[LordQDW]

I agree

 

[Brahmatman]

I'm not sure I see how this is a dream? He's looking at a crystal ball.

Yes, he is watching someone else's sleep.

Your scan doesn't say most of this. It just says "higher, lower, where and when, they have so little meaning here." It doesn't say that these concepts don't exist or that it's about Heaven being so beyond them or anything like that.

Anyway, there is no dimensional difference there. If such a difference doesn't exist in this place, then in my opinion, this concept doesn't really exist. If it's stated that a character or a place is beyond death or something similar, it still implies being outside the concept as such.

Given that they're talking about witnessing the birth of universes, my inclination is that "time being created in a myriad of vectors" and "experience being folded into any number of spatial dimensions" is just a continuation of that since it's all in the same paragraph. As in, each new universe is a new "vector" of time and a new spatial dimension for experience.

Yes, but there is a small problem with that because it is also stated that any number of spatial coordinates exists. Otherwise, it becomes very strange that each universe is a new time vector, but any number of spatial coordinates exists independently of this statement.

 

[Im_Jason_Voorhees]

#MakeDCGreatAgain!!!
Kinda agree with this

 

[Deagonx]

any number of spatial coordinates exists independently of this statement.

The phrase in full is:

"We witness the births and deaths of countless universes;
see time create itself in a myriad of different vectors;
experience being folded into any number of spatial dimensions..."

This is all in a single text box. I am inclined to think, then, that these all refer to the same thing in different ways. The birth and death of countless universes = time creating itself in a myriad of vectors = experience being folded into any number of spatial dimensions.

 

[Brahmatman]

The phrase in full is:

"We witness the births and deaths of countless universes;
see time create itself in a myriad of different vectors;
experience being folded into any number of spatial dimensions..."

This is all in a single text box. I am inclined to think, then, that these all refer to the same thing in different ways. The birth and death of countless universes = time creating itself in a myriad of vectors = experience being folded into any number of spatial dimensions.

I meant that even if we consider Myriads as a metaphor or a minimal value, we still have an indication of any number of coordinates. As you have already described, time manifests itself in various coordinate axes, beyond the conventional 4D. The meaning in this text cannot be refuted unless done deliberately.

 

[Deagonx]

I meant that even if we consider Myriads as a metaphor or a minimal value, we still have an indication of any number of coordinates

My meaning is that the "myriad of vectors" and "any number of spatial dimensions" refers to the multiplicity of universes described immediately prior. As in, this is not an infinite dimensional space, it is just an infinite multiverse.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

This is all in a single text box. I am inclined to think, then, that these all refer to the same thing in different ways. The birth and death of countless universes = time creating itself in a myriad of vectors = experience being folded into any number of spatial dimensions.

I'm sorry but how did you interpret it this way? I've read it as well and doesn't not seem to be the case.

The countless universes rebirth to the myriads of vectors seem ok though the former is the context point. However, those folding within any number of spatial dimensions refer to the dimension within those set universes. That's not interchangeable with each other, that's a whole different sentence explaining something else.

I don't know how you came to the conclusion of three separate thoughts meaning the same thing. I assume you see the semi-colon means equivocation. Which it's not.

 

[Brahmatman]

My meaning is that the "myriad of vectors" and "any number of spatial dimensions" refers to the multiplicity of universes described immediately prior. As in, this is not an infinite dimensional space, it is just an infinite multiverse.

So it why describe any number of spatial dimensions when there are only 3? Does the text depict a multitude of spatial dimensions within the context of an infinite number of universes? Why consider a multitude when there are only 3 axes for all universes?

 

[Deagonx]

So it why describe any number of spatial dimensions when there are only 3?

3 * infinite universes = any number.

 

[Brahmatman]

3 * infinite universes = any number.

Any infinite dimension can be interpreted this way, but no one ever writes that any number of coordinates equals an infinite number of universes. Because then it was necessary to count not the number of spatial dimensions, but the number of three-dimensional axes themselves.
Spatial axes are not only 3D, they can be in any number

 

[EmperorRorepmeThree]

Individual/Collective Unconscious:
In the individual unconscious, a living being, using willpower and imagination, is capable of creating its own personal, infinite universe.
All other parallel universes float in bubbles alongside each other. All dreams are entirely objective and real things, representing a separate reality. They are much larger than just objective or non-objective.
The very chain of the dream hierarchy represents a collective unconscious existence, a multitude of dreams in one sequence. And any lower dream is just a manifestation of a higher dream. As we can see in the example of this scan, showing that the other is just the dream of another being.
And the subsequent dream is only, once again, the dream of another being, representing an infinite recursion or hierarchy of dreams, where each subsequent dream is only the dream of a higher being.
>In fact of the matter is there's really no such things as the end.
Even if, somehow, one cannot accept an infinite hierarchy of dreams, why can't we simply acknowledge the fact that in any case, each dream is only the offspring of another dream, which will be the product of another, and so on? I mean that the absence of an indication of the infinity of the hierarchy is not always a mandatory factor for deducing other ways of interpreting the hierarchical system. In this case, ANY dream will be the product of another dream, meaning it simply cannot end.

Based on this, we get High 1-B for an infinite hierarchy of dreams, where each previous dream is merely a dream of the subsequent one. Alternatively, a Low 1-A if we use a reference to vectors.

I'll need to read through Green Lantern: Willworld to judge this properly

 

[Antvasima]

I trust Deagonx's sense of judgement here.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

Any infinite dimension can be interpreted this way, but no one ever writes that any number of coordinates equals an infinite number of universes. Because then it was necessary to count not the number of spatial dimensions, but the number of three-dimensional axes themselves.
Spatial axes are not only 3D, they can be in any number

This makes much more sense though.

 

[Robo432343]

I'm sorry but how did you interpret it this way? I've read it as well and doesn't not seem to be the case.

The countless universes rebirth to the myriads of vectors seem ok though the former is the context point. However, those folding within any number of spatial dimensions refer to the dimension within those set universes. That's not interchangeable with each other, that's a whole different sentence explaining something else.

I don't know how you came to the conclusion of three separate thoughts meaning the same thing. I assume you see the semi-colon means equivocation. Which it's not.

^ literally this

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

The entire story arc is Hal venturing through reality above reality in a similar way to higher beings in the different layers of Dream.

In one of the stories, he saw it as real despite it just being one mask to be unveiled then he realizes that the one above him in a higher layer of the Dream was all fake despite experiencing the event. That recursive cluster of layers upon layers in the Dream is a hierarchy. Spatio-temporal realms end in the material. Layers of dreams and layers is reality are independent of each other. Each dimension is a hierarchy and a layer but that's only within one of the universes created by choice and possibility which folds itself creating an entire rebirth of universes. All that is just the material plane, and there are limitless/countless planes that a Soul ventures through to more real/higher realms in the dream and the individual layers within the set planes.

All that is an illusion, the 2nd illusion, to the True Reality/True Illusion where only God is there dreaming of the Dream in layers upon layers of mask needing to be unveiled to let Soul remember their actual existence being that same entity.

 

[Kenny Mccormick 0v0]

I agree with this

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

Everyone else said it well, but I might as well throw in my 2 cents. Unless I have something else to add later, someone else can address the whole “endless hierarchy of dreams” ordeal.

Yeah… this has nothing to do with individual universes having possibly infinite spatial dimensions. The whole “time creating itself in countless vectors” statement is referring to the creation and destruction of universes and the axes of space-time that service them. Let me explain it with a [shoddy] visual.

As you can see, we have different 3-dimensional universes, all of which have their own temporal dimensions, and are spaced apart by a 5-dimensional brane. The development (by which I mean creation/destruction) of these universes might could be described as “time creating itself in a myriad of vectors…” because there are different directions. Universe 7 could be serviced by its own direction of time, Universe 52 could be serviced by its own length/width/depth… these are a “myriad of vectors,” in the sense that they are different 1/2/3-dimensional directions or 4-dimensional directions.

If we had a vague statement like “multiple spatial/temporal dimensions” in the context of a single timeline, that could suggest a construction that goes beyond 4-dimensional space-time. However, since we’re talking about a multiverse, “myriad of vectors” could simple be interpreted as the different vectors each universe uses for its 4-dimensional continuum.

Now, you might try to salvage this with the “any number of spatial dimensions” statement. Semantically speaking, the “any quantity” part must create a context favoring the interpretation that universes are distinct from one another in the sense that their number of coordinates are different (rather than just their type of vectors, as I explained above). However, now we have to play even deeper into semantics (time for things to get unnecessarily bloated).

The word “any” is a determiner used to refer to an arbitrary selection from a given set of things. The keyword is given set, as in the word “any” is very context-based. If you’re forced to select from a pile of clothes, “any option” refers to one of the clothes at hand. If you’re forced to answer a multiple choice question, “any answer” refers to one of the four answers. “Any” isn’t a magical word that means infinite.

Let’s say a fictional cosmology was depicted as having 12 universes, then we meet a god who’s introduced as being “capable of destroying any number of universes he wants.” We wouldn’t scale that god to multiversal+, lol. He’d cap at Low Multi since that’s the set of elements we have to work with.

The word “any” tends to be an NLF in general. What context can we use for this specific statement to conclude that the “number of spatial dimensions” goes beyond a 4-dimensional continuum? Why must we stop at infinite dimensions, at that? We can assume that “any” encompasses inaccessible cardinals, and therefore conclude that a single universe can be high outerverse level.

Btw, you could argue that “any” means “n quantity,” but even that doesn’t get you an infinite hierarchy according to the FAQ.

Q: What tier does a character being able to destroy an unlimited amount of dimensions equate to?​

​

Such a feat would be considered to be the upper end of Tier 1-B if there is no further context. That is because it could be understood to have the same meaning as the statement: "The character is able to destroy n-dimensional space, for any number n." In that formulation it is clear that such a statement would cover all finite dimensions, but we do not assume that "an unlimited amount" would cover infinitely many dimensions or even higher cardinalities of them. If the verse is known to have infinite dimensions, then this would instead be interpreted as being able to destroy all dimensions the verse is known to have.

Statements like “any number of dimensions/layers/planes” don’t mean anything without context. It’s very case-by-case, but at the absolute bare minimum, you’d need evidence that this “any” can encompass speculative dimensions or higher levels of infinity than those shown to exist already. Even then, disregarding certain cases like with negative theology scaling, you’d need further evidence that this “any” encompasses an infinite number of higher levels of infinity. Otherwise, assuming any=infinite is rather arbitrary and a bit of an NLF.

Sorry for being overly verbose, I just couldn’t formulate this response any more succinctly.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

Yeah… this has nothing to do with individual universes having possibly infinite spatial dimensions. The whole “time creating itself in countless vectors” statement is referring to the creation and destruction of universes and the axes of space-time that service them. Let me explain it with a [shoddy] visual.

You're forgetting how Matteis writes isn't atone with mathematics like that. Given that, each possibility or decision makes an entirely different set of universes. People making choices and decisions do not naturally know how this vector creates spatial or atemporal nature. You're putting too much into what isn't even within the context of the scans. I've seen you do this with your “two cents” on the nature of the Lucifer series “Void” which arguably is missing a heap of information that pertains to the story due to an interpretation you find that does not fit the storytelling of Matteis.

Either way, the story wasn't written by him and it just shows DC does have spatial dimension above whatever we consider it to have.

As you can see, we have different 3-dimensional universes, all of which have their own temporal dimensions, and are spaced apart by a 5-dimensional brane. The development (by which I mean creation/destruction) of these universes might could be described as “time creating itself in a myriad of vectors…” because there are different directions. Universe 7 could be serviced by its own direction of time, Universe 52 could be serviced by its own length/width/depth… these are a “myriad of vectors,” in the sense that they are different 1/2/3-dimensional directions or 4-dimensional directions.

Myriads is just referring to any sort of quantity based on the nature of possibilities creating the rebirth of universes. Unless you have specific context to support this then what you're saying doesn't apply to what the story was trying to tell us. Your notion of dimensional vectors does not alleviate what the story is saying.

Each semi-colon is a different though when they drift into spaceamind.. Where they see countless rebirths of universes which is a stand-alone statement. Within that, they can “also” see how time works in creating itself through myriads of vectors. They can experience in that nature different innumerable amounts of spatial dimension that fold upon themselves. Each experience of the nature from which they were drifting was seeing how things within their perspective work differently through their collective mind.

If we had a vague statement like “multiple spatial/temporal dimensions” in the context of a single timeline, that could suggest a construction that goes beyond 4-dimensional space-time. However, since we’re talking about a multiverse, “myriad of vectors” could simple be interpreted as the different vectors each universe uses for its 4-dimensional continuum.

This is an assumption and I don't see where that context was fitted to support your claim. They drift through multitudes of space-time and they see different things while they are traveling back.

It also doesn't say “each universe.” It talks about different events happening like how universes are dead and being reborn and seeing the nature of how where they're traveling from has them folded through any number of spatial dimensions. Doesn't mention how they intertwine with each other.

Now, you might try to salvage this with the “any number of spatial dimensions” statement. Semantically speaking, the “any quantity” part must create a context favoring the interpretation that universes are distinct from one another in the sense that their number of coordinates are different (rather than just their type of vectors, as I explained above). However, now we have to play even deeper into semantics (time for things to get unnecessarily bloated).

Yes, because those vectors were just corresponding as the same within each universe. They simply saw the rebirth of a multitude of universes as well as saw time being created through multiple vector points.

Unless these universes have a sort of “time” stream for each of them that when it does branch and creates these vectors. The scans more imply than “time” in itself apart from theze rebirth still birth those possibilities as each universe is being destroyed and reborn. Its systems aren't one-on-one with them, it's naturally flowing and concurring as it is while we see the universes being reborn.

The word “any” is a determiner used to refer to an arbitrary selection from a given set of things. The keyword is given set, as in the word “any” is very context-based. If you’re forced to select from a pile of clothes, “any option” refers to one of the clothes at hand. If you’re forced to answer a multiple choice question, “any answer” refers to one of the four answers. “Any” isn’t a magical word that means infinite.

Weird analogy without the proper use of context and setting. Rather you're making an example of your own of its own accord to connect it. Given that countless/myriads/any can be synonymous with each other. There are ways of saying infinite without being direct. It's definitely more than four.

Let’s say a fictional cosmology was depicted as having 12 universes, then we meet a god who’s introduced as being “capable of destroying any number of universes he wants.” We wouldn’t scale that god to multiversal+, lol. He’d cap at Low Multi since that’s the set of elements we have to work with.

That's logic being applied. The story already depicts countless which already is a good basis for “how” much there already is. We already are given what we know of the elements throughout the story.

The word “any” tends to be an NLF in general. What context can we use for this specific statement to conclude that the “number of spatial dimensions” goes beyond a 4-dimensional continuum? Why must we stop at infinite dimensions, at that? We can assume that “any” encompasses inaccessible cardinals, and therefore conclude that a single universe can be high outerverse level.

There's no reason why they would just use “any.” It's more so being generalized to not being “countable.” This makes sense of what they used with the terms given in the story. If it says infinite universes then it would always be infinite if in reference to the nature of the dimensions. You're not using “any” within the context here.

Btw, you could argue that “any” means “n quantity,” but even that doesn’t get you an infinite hierarchy according to the FAQ.

Matteis's story has suggested this. This specific story may not but it's not the standalone here.

Statements like “any number of dimensions/layers/planes” don’t mean anything without context. It’s very case-by-case, but at the absolute bare minimum, you’d need evidence that this “any” can encompass speculative dimensions or higher levels of infinity than those shown to exist already. Even then, disregarding certain cases like with negative theology scaling, you’d need further evidence that this “any” encompasses an infinite number of higher levels of infinity. Otherwise, assuming any=infinite is rather arbitrary and a bit of an NLF.

Sorry for being overly verbose, I just couldn’t formulate this response any more succinctly.

What the OP said may not be fully accurate but the idea of “any” in correspondence to the terms and the complementary idea of uncountable go hand in hand.

 

[Brahmatman]

As you can see, we have different 3-dimensional universes, all of which have their own temporal dimensions, and are spaced apart by a 5-dimensional brane. The development (by which I mean creation/destruction) of these universes might could be described as “time creating itself in a myriad of vectors…” because there are different directions. Universe 7 could be serviced by its own direction of time, Universe 52 could be serviced by its own length/width/depth… these are a “myriad of vectors,” in the sense that they are different 1/2/3-dimensional directions or 4-dimensional directions.

If we had a vague statement like “multiple spatial/temporal dimensions” in the context of a single timeline, that could suggest a construction that goes beyond 4-dimensional space-time. However, since we’re talking about a multiverse, “myriad of vectors” could simple be interpreted as the different vectors each universe uses for its 4-dimensional continuum.

The only problem is that it does not describe each universe separately with its own personal space-time continuum, but their combined set of possibilities, in which time reproduces itself in different vectors, and any amount of coordinate is layered onto the universe.
If the statement really meant something like that, then a statement about any number of coordinates would be meaningless if the coordinates of the spaces were actually the same for other universes in a given statement. I understand perfectly well that you mean that any number of spaces is equivalent to any number of universes that have those spaces. But then the spatial coordinates would not be described separately from other vectors, which are a set of 1/2/3D. If this were really a set of identical coordinates, then they would not be displayed in a plurality of spatial dimensions, and even more so, in any of its numerical sets.

The word “any” is a determiner used to refer to an arbitrary selection from a given set of things. The keyword is given set, as in the word “any” is very context-based. If you’re forced to select from a pile of clothes, “any option” refers to one of the clothes at hand. If you’re forced to answer a multiple choice question, “any answer” refers to one of the four answers. “Any” isn’t a magical word that means infinite.

In this case and context, the absence of restrictions or an infinite number (Myriads) was indicated several times, so I see no problem connecting these words together, which are literally interconnected within these events

Let’s say a fictional cosmology was depicted as having 12 universes, then we meet a god who’s introduced as being “capable of destroying any number of universes he wants.” We wouldn’t scale that god to multiversal+, lol. He’d cap at Low Multi since that’s the set of elements we have to work with.

If he is truly capable of destroying an infinite set of universes, then higher level denial is merely a subjective dislike of the idea that a character could be of a level higher than the cosmological construct shown. If the author wants to do something in the plot, then he will do it, and we literally do not have any legal rights to deny what the author has shown

The word “any” tends to be an NLF in general. What context can we use for this specific statement to conclude that the “number of spatial dimensions” goes beyond a 4-dimensional continuum? Why must we stop at infinite dimensions, at that? We can assume that “any” encompasses inaccessible cardinals, and therefore conclude that a single universe can be high outerverse level.

Probably the fact that any number of them is indicated? Or the fact that Time creates new vectors independently of universes? This can no longer be reconciled with the understanding that universes have only 4 coordinates

Btw, you could argue that “any” means “n quantity,” but even that doesn’t get you an infinite hierarchy according to the FAQ.

If this is not a metaphor, but a direct and serious statement, then I see no reason to deny

Statements like “any number of dimensions/layers/planes” don’t mean anything without context. It’s very case-by-case, but at the absolute bare minimum, you’d need evidence that this “any” can encompass speculative dimensions or higher levels of infinity than those shown to exist already. Even then, disregarding certain cases like with negative theology scaling, you’d need further evidence that this “any” encompasses an infinite number of higher levels of infinity. Otherwise, assuming any=infinite is rather arbitrary and a bit of an NLF.

In this case, the context is tied to spatial dimensions, and not just one spatial dimension

 

[Antvasima]

@Deagonx

What should we do here?

 

[Deagonx]

@Deagonx

What should we do here?

Personally I am against any changes being made based on this CRT.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

Despite the majority consensus here. We only come to one person's decision to not change it. Can we tag some more people and if you like some mods because, I see pretty much a few disagreements here on a scan that has nothing to due with Matteis Cosmology.

 

[Swordsaint456]

YES FINNALLY! agreed!

 

[Deagonx]

@Elizio33 @Firestorm808 thoughts on the above? I posted a counterargument to the OP

 

[Firestorm808]

Can the OP please attach the source for each scan?

 

[Robo432343]

Can the OP please attach the source for each scan?

if you search image with google, you can find all the scans.
it just takes a while to find what issue the scans are from

 

[Brahmatman]

Can the OP please attach the source for each scan?

I indicated everything

Source:
Doctor Fate v2 (Human souls)
Spectre v4 (Heavens)
League of Justice (Spatial dimension)
Green lantern: Will world (Dream)

 

[Firestorm808]

if you search image with google, you can find all the scans.
it just takes a while to find what issue the scans are from

It's part of the site rules.

 

[Firestorm808]

I indicated everything

Source:
Doctor Fate v2 (Human souls)
Spectre v4 (Heavens)
League of Justice (Spatial dimension)
Green lantern: Will world (Dream)

You aren't able to provide the issue #s for each scan?

 

[Brahmatman]

You aren't able to provide the issue #s for each scan?

Spectre v4 #9
Doctor Fate v2 #13
Green lanter: Will world (Almost the end of the comic)
League of Justice #2

 

[Asterotheology]

I agree with Willworld being added to DeMatteis cosmology, but I disagree with the addition of League of Justice. At least with Willworld DeMatteis wrote it, and it doesn't contradict his own works. The Elseworld scan however I completely disagree with. It's neither written by DeMatteis nor is it consistent with his works. You can argue for it applying to the Crisis Cosmology since Dark Crisis Big Bang did bring Elseworld comics back into having their own earths in the omniverse but for DeMatteis, there's little to no chance.

So, if this entire upgrade hinges on that Elseworld scan, then this CRT might fail. The Cosmologies are split and if DeMatteis had no hand in said comic nor is it referenced in any of his works, it likely won't be accepted for his cosmology.

 

[Brahmatman]

I agree with Willworld being added to DeMatteis cosmology, but I disagree with the addition of League of Justice. At least with Willworld DeMatteis wrote it, and it doesn't contradict his own works. The Elseworld scan however I completely disagree with. It's neither written by DeMatteis nor is it consistent with his works. You can argue for it applying to the Crisis Cosmology since Dark Crisis Big Bang did bring Elseworld comics back into having their own earths in the omniverse but for DeMatteis, there's little to no chance.

So, if this entire upgrade hinges on that Elseworld scan, then this CRT might fail. The Cosmologies are split and if DeMatteis had no hand in said comic nor is it referenced in any of his works, it likely won't be accepted for his cosmology.

Elseworld was canon back in the New 52. And I don’t understand what the problem is in accepting an indication of dimensions from a neutral party if they do not contradict the author’s cosmology

 

[Asterotheology]

Elseworld was canon back in the New 52. And I don’t understand what the problem is in accepting an indication of dimensions from a neutral party if they do not contradict the author’s cosmology

Doesn't really matter if it was canon in N52. If you can't prove DeMatteis wrote it or used it in his cosmology consistently, if at all, then this will likely fail. That's how the cosmology split works here. Your best bet is trying to use it for Crisis Cosmology.

 

[Brahmatman]

Doesn't really matter if it was canon in N52. If you can't prove DeMatteis wrote it or used it in his cosmology consistently, if at all, then this will likely fail. That's how the cosmology split works here. Your best bet is trying to use it for Crisis Cosmology.

Cosmological Splits are created to ensure that cosmologies do not contradict each other. What they contradict in this case is unknown

 

[Asterotheology]

Cosmological Splits are created to ensure that cosmologies do not contradict each other. What they contradict in this case is unknown

I didn't make the rules or set the standards for it all. That's just how it is here. If it doesn't contradict DeMatteis work, then you wouldn't need the scan at all since his works would support the upgrade regardless of its inclusion or not.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

Yeah, it's specifically must be Matteis work.